Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Checkmarx One vs NGINX App Protect comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.5
Checkmarx One enhances security, speeds delivery, reduces costs, and returns ROI within six months for some users.
Sentiment score
6.9
Organizations saw positive ROI with NGINX App Protect during COVID-19, improving security and integration, anticipating future benefits.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
Checkmarx One provides generally positive support, but response delays and unresolved tickets challenge some users, despite skilled assistance.
Sentiment score
6.3
NGINX App Protect support is praised for promptness and helpfulness but inconsistencies and costs affect user satisfaction.
They were quick and efficient when we had issues.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Checkmarx One offers strong scalability, supports automation, and manages scan engines, though may face processing time and licensing cost constraints.
Sentiment score
6.5
NGINX App Protect is scalable with diverse options but faces deployment, traffic, and configuration centralization challenges noted by users.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Checkmarx One is generally stable, but users report occasional crashes and performance issues, varying stability ratings from 4-10.
Sentiment score
8.4
NGINX App Protect is praised for stability and integration, outperforming competitors, though minor improvements in HTML5 are needed.
It is a quality solution, and I would rate its stability as eight out of ten.
 

Room For Improvement

Checkmarx One requires enhancements in false positive reduction, language support, pricing, role management, UI, and support response time.
NGINX App Protect requires improved flexibility, UI, API, automation, network support, pricing, integration, and feature enhancements like security and documentation.
There was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service.
 

Setup Cost

Checkmarx One's pricing is costly but justified by its flexibility, competitive pricing, and enhanced security for enterprises.
NGINX App Protect costs $3,000-$400,000 annually, considered expensive but competitive, with no hidden fees and strategic cost management possible.
 

Valuable Features

Checkmarx One offers advanced code analysis, seamless repository integration, and user-friendly features for efficient security testing and vulnerability management.
NGINX App Protect provides comprehensive security features including automation, containerization, and flexible API connectivity for robust application protection.
The most valuable feature is the ability to operate in a DevOps environment and to be configured through API and pipeline by the developers themselves.
Detecting bots and blocking IPs have proven effective for securing applications.
 

Categories and Ranking

Checkmarx One
Ranking in API Security
4th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
70
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (24th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th)
NGINX App Protect
Ranking in API Security
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (15th), Container Security (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 6.4%, up from 3.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NGINX App Protect is 2.9%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Security
 

Featured Reviews

ScottDenton - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports different languages, has excellent support, and easily expands
The interactive application security testing, or IAST, where code scans are being ran on an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement. There was limited support from different languages. It didn't support everything under the sun, so you would lose revenue since you didn't have support for Scala or some other language that your developer was fluent in. They needed to improve on language support. That is about it, really. The dev team did everything that they said they were going to do. If they said they were going to hit a mark, they'd hit a mark. That release would come out. Typically, they would do four major releases a year, quarterly, with two-point releases in between, or based on any additional hotfixes that may be needed. In most cases, however, IAST was the part of the product that needed to be improved the most. Codebashing is a really cool product from the aspect of teaching developers how to write secure code. However, it would be even cooler if you could not only point out and teach someone how to do it while also making the appropriate recommendation on how to rewrite the code itself, using machine learning or AI. Instead of you, the developer learning how to do it and then writing the code yourself, it'd be cooler if you could push a button, have it analyzed, scans the code, find the code, find the issue within the line of code, and then go ahead and automatically rewrite that code for you. Then, by repetition, it just teaches you through muscle memory how to do that as opposed to, "Hey, you've found this problem. This is where the problem's located, within this particular line of code." Right now, do you know how to rewrite Java? Well, if you're not familiar with how to do that, then go push on this button. Now, take this test and go through this exercise.” It doesn't make a recommendation. It's not like providing a script that fixes the problem. It's just teaching you on how to write the code in that form in that manner.
MariosChristodoulou - PeerSpot reviewer
Very robust and easy to deploy
The solution is easy to deploy. Its scalability and integration capabilities depend on its performance and the extent to which you want to integrate it into your development process. It doesn't necessarily cost more money beyond the initial setup. You need to identify the placement. You must understand your application. Lastly, you should assess which NGINX features are suitable for the functionality you wish to implement. This initial phase involves analysis. Following the analysis, you proceed to the test deployment stage. Subsequently, you enter alert mode and finally enable NGINX App Protect. It's a simple deployment. A single engineer can do the job.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.
What do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NGINX App Protect?
I don't know the pricing yet because in my other project, I was not part of the buying side and I was just starting to look at options.
What needs improvement with NGINX App Protect?
It would be better if it were easier to implement and if there was more information from F5 regarding hardware requirements and specifications to deploy the service, to avoid disruptions after impl...
 

Also Known As

No data available
NGINX WAF, NGINX Web Application Firewall
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. NGINX App Protect and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.