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

Checkmarx One vs Qwiet AI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
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)
Qwiet AI
Ranking in Application Security Tools
37th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
38th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.0%, down from 12.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qwiet AI is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One10.0%
Qwiet AI0.4%
Other89.6%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

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.
SS
Effectively in identify and fix bugs early in the development lifecycle
When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Previously, security professionals had to spend a lot of time and effort running around, asking people to fix issues in their products, architectures, code, and even networks. With ShiftLeft, everything becomes robust and secure from within. Instead of relying on external measures like Web Application Firewalls (WAF) that are applied from the outside in, ShiftLeft takes a proactive approach. It helps prevent issues from arising in the first place, making it much easier for both security teams and developers. It's also cost-effective because you don't have to constantly go back, make changes to the code, and then push it again. Writing secure code from the start ensures that there are no vulnerabilities when it goes live. So, I would say the main features of ShiftLeft are its cost-effectiveness and ease of adaptability or use.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"When it comes to ShiftLeft, the most valuable feature is definitely its ease of use and cost-effectiveness."
 

Cons

"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"Having support from senior management is crucial in making it mandatory for teams to collaborate with the security team throughout the development process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year. I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year)."
"Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up."
"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."
"The tool's pricing is fine."
"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."
"It is an expensive solution."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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%
Retailer
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Recreational Facilities/Services Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
ShiftLeft
 

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 Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.