Checkmarx One vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Checkmarx and MathWorks are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.3, while MathWorks is ranked #31 with an average rating of 4.0. Checkmarx holds a 7.3% mindshare in AS, compared to MathWorks’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 85% of MathWorks users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

29,420 Views
16,181 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Polyspace Code Prover

Read 7 Polyspace Code Prover reviews

3,528 Views
2,858 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Polyspace Code Prover

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Checkmarx One and Polyspace Code Prover deliver robust solutions for software security and verification. Polyspace Code Prover slightly edges out in advanced static code analysis, though Checkmarx One is favored for affordability and support services.

Features: Checkmarx One integrates well and offers comprehensive security scanning, advantageous for DevOps teams. Polyspace Code Prover excels in sophisticated static analysis and proving code correctness without execution while also providing precise identification of coding flaws.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One could enhance its scanning speed and the navigation intuitiveness of its tools. Polyspace Code Prover could improve scalability and parallel processing capabilities. Checkmarx needs quicker scanning, contrasting with Polyspace's scalability needs.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One ensures straightforward deployment and reliable customer service, aiding smoother integration. Polyspace Code Prover demands more setup time, but offers responsive and knowledgeable support. Checkmarx offers seamless initial experiences, while Polyspace requires significant setup effort but maintains high support quality.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One is seen as budget-friendly, offering better pricing options for users seeking value. Polyspace Code Prover’s advanced features justify its higher setup costs, delivering long-term cost-effectiveness for thorough code analysis.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 913,683 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Checkmarx One

Ranking in Application Security Tools

2nd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Vulnerability Management (12th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 7.3%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	7.3%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.2%
Other	91.5%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution

Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance

Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.

Read full review

reviewer2760282

General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification

Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution overall is very good at detecting and pinpointing vulnerabilities in the code."

"Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."

"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."

"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."

"It's been a very positive experience overall."

"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms, its ease of use is another good feature, and it also supports most of the languages."

"It provides a graphical view of any vulnerabilities."

"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."

More Checkmarx One pros

"The product detects memory corruptions."

"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."

"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."

"The outputs are very reliable."

"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."

"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."

Cons

"The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved."

"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."

"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."

"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."

"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."

"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."

"Their licensing fees are rigid and this causes two main issues. One is a restriction in terms of scaling the product at an enterprise level."

"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."

More Checkmarx One cons

"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."

"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."

"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."

"Automation could be a challenge."

"I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation."

"The tool has some stability issues."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."

"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."

"The solution is costly."

"It's relatively expensive."

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."

"It is the right price for quality delivery."

"Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications)."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"We use the paid version."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Outsourcing Company

Manufacturing Company

35%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

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.

See all answers

What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?

According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?

It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?

We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 24% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 13% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 10% of the time

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 9% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 7% of the time

GitHub vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 3% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

September 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Polyspace Code Prover

September 2026

Download Polyspace Code Prover product report

Overview

Checkmarx One delivers robust security through seamless integration with SCM and CI/CD tools, ensuring reliable SAST and SCA. Primarily used by organizations for vulnerability detection, it supports cloud and on-premises deployment to enhance secure coding practices.

Checkmarx One provides organizations with comprehensive tools for secure software development, integrating effectively with CI/CD pipelines to scan thousands of applications. Its capabilities extend to identifying vulnerabilities in both code bases and third-party software. Enhancing workflow by supporting SCM solutions, it assists in maintaining secure coding standards and compliance. While excelling in various areas, it requires improvements in scan speed, reduction of false positives, and broader platform integration, particularly for COBOL and Swift. Its pricing model is noted as high, and demand exists for better tutorials and documentation.

What are the key features of Checkmarx One?

Comprehensive Integration: Seamlessly connects with SCM, CI/CD tools to streamline security workflows.
Accurate SAST and SCA: Precisely identifies vulnerabilities down to the exact line of code.
Custom Rules Configuration: Allows tailored security measures to match specific needs.
Quick Scanning: Provides fast analysis to speed up the development process.
Automated Code Remediation: Helps in efficiently fixing code vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect in reviews?

Improved Security: Enhances code safety, reducing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Effective False Positivity Management: Optimizes time spent on genuine issues.
Enhanced Development Processes: Integrates smoothly to boost secure coding initiatives.
Comprehensive Language Support: Facilitates scanning in multiple programming languages, accommodating diverse needs.

Industries implement Checkmarx One for secure coding compliance and vulnerability management across varying environments, choosing between cloud and on-premises deployment based on requirements. Its extensive language support and integration with DevSecOps practices make it a popular choice for organizations aiming to enhance software security.

Checkmarx

Polyspace Code Prover boosts code reliability by identifying critical issues like memory corruption and null pointer dereferences, adhering to ISO 26262 standards.

Polyspace Code Prover offers advanced static code analysis tailored to detect complex runtime issues, making it a substantial asset in safety-critical software development. With features that facilitate easy integration with minimal tool switching, it effectively examines code segment runtimes for potential faults such as memory overflows. Polyspace Code Prover stands out by providing mathematical proofs of correctness, differentiating it from other static tools. However, improvements in processing speed and large-scale application handling remain necessary. While integration challenges exist with CI environments like AWS and Azure, the tool's efficiency is valued in automotive applications for unit-level verification and requirement-based component development, despite some scalability limitations.

What are Polyspace Code Prover's key features?

Division by Zero Checks: Ensures code stability and reliability by identifying risky operations.
Memory Corruption Detection: Safeguards against potential memory leaks and access violations.
ISO 26262 Compliance: Aligns with critical automotive industry standards.
Mathematical Correctness Proof: Provides certainty in logic correctness, unique in static analysis tools.
Minimal Tool Switching: Enhances user efficiency with seamless integration into workflows.

What benefits can be gained from Polyspace Code Prover?

Enhanced Code Reliability: Reduces faults and improves the robustness of developed code.
Increased Efficiency: Fast analysis with minimal tool changes streamlines workflow.
Compliance Assurance: Supports meeting stringent industry standards.
Risk Reduction: Identifies critical issues early, minimizing potential downtime or defects.

In industries such as automotive, Polyspace Code Prover is crucial for Functional Safety validation. It is applied in diverse projects like vertical control systems and cluster infotainment, with a focus on requirement-based component development. Despite challenges in larger applications, it remains a vital tool for analyzing Simulink models and small-scale implementations.

MathWorks

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover

September 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover report.

See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.

We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.