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

Checkmarx One vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (23rd), Container Security (23rd), Static Code Analysis (3rd), API Security (6th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), DevSecOps (5th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd)
Polyspace Code Prover
Ranking in Application Security Tools
23rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.4%, down from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.4%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One10.4%
Polyspace Code Prover1.4%
Other88.2%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Syed Hasan - PeerSpot reviewer
Partner experiences excellent technical support and seamless initial setup
In my opinion, if we are able to extract or show the report, and because everything is going towards agent tech and GenAI, it would be beneficial if it could get integrated with our code base and do the fix automatically. It could suggest how the code base is written and automatically populate the source code with three different solution options to choose from. This would be really helpful.
Pradeep Panchakarla - PeerSpot reviewer
A reliable solution that provides excellent features and detects memory corruption
The run time analysis process must be improved. If we do not run with the main loop, it generates its own main and doesn’t allow developers to modify the execution sequences. The solution must provide more flexibility to the developers to manipulate the runtime analysis tools. The developer must be allowed to modify the main sequence. It will be very easy for them to test their use cases. Otherwise, Polyspace generates a random main file and executes all the functions randomly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."
"I have seen a return on investment from Checkmarx One."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"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."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"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 product detects memory corruptions."
 

Cons

"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"Checkmarx could improve the speed of the scans."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"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."
"The tool has some stability issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."
"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."
"The solution is costly."
"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."
"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."
"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
39%
Computer Software Company
10%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
5%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise38
No data available
 

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 do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?
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,...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
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. It require support. There could be an issue with range propag...
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.