Checkmarx One vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

Checkmarx and MathWorks are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2, while MathWorks is ranked #26 with an average rating of 6.3. Checkmarx holds a 9.9% mindshare in AS, compared to MathWorks’s 1.3% 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

18,489 Views
13,497 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Polyspace Code Prover

Read 7 Polyspace Code Prover reviews

2,457 Views
1,794 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: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Polyspace Code Prover

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,665 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) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (7th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

26th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.9%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Checkmarx One	9.9%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.3%
Other	88.8%

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

"Once you implement Checkmarx One, you can be sure that you're getting value from the solution almost immediately because Checkmarx One also handles false positives very effectively, saving you time and saving your developers time."

"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."

"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."

"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."

"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are its integration with multiple SCM solutions and CICD tools, its ability to scale according to user licenses, and the quick scanning process."

"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."

"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."

"The user interface is modern and nice to use."

More Checkmarx One pros

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

"The outputs are very reliable."

"The product detects memory corruptions."

"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."

"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over 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, and null pointer dereferences."

Cons

"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."

"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."

"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 integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."

"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."

"Checkmarx One is often down when the cloud provider experiences issues. A more fail-tolerant solution needs to be created."

"It takes around 30 to 40 minutes for checking a build. If you can make it within five minutes or 10 minutes, that would be great."

"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."

More Checkmarx One cons

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

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

"The tool has some stability issues."

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

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."

"Automation could be a challenge."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."

"The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies."

"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)."

"We're using a commercial version of Checkmarx, and we paid for the solution for one year. The price is high and could be reduced."

"It's relatively expensive."

"It is the right price for quality delivery."

"The solution is costly."

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

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

38%

Computer Software Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Financial Services Firm

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 do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

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 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,...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polyspace Code Prover?

We use the paid version.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 47% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 23% of the time

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 17% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 12% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 9% of the time

GitLab vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 3% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

January 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Polyspace Code Prover

January 2026

Download Polyspace Code Prover product report

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

Polyspace Code Prover is a sound static analysis tool that proves the absence of overflow, divide-by-zero, out-of-bounds array access, and certain other run-time errors in C and C++ source code. It produces results without requiring program execution, code instrumentation, or test cases. Polyspace Code Prover uses semantic analysis and abstract interpretation based on formal methods to verify software interprocedural, control, and data flow behavior. You can use it on handwritten code, generated code, or a combination of the two. Each operation is color-coded to indicate whether it is free of run-time errors, proven to fail, unreachable, or unproven.

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

February 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: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,665 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.