Checkmarx SAST vs OWASP Zap comparison

Checkmarx and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #20 with an average rating of 7.7, while OWASP is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 2.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 2.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx SAST

Read 5 Checkmarx SAST reviews

4,218 Views
4,176 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

9,445 Views
8,784 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Checkmarx SAST

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Checkmarx SAST and OWASP Zap based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx SAST vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: August 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST vs. OWASP Zap

August 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 908,834 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 SAST

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

20th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

16th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx SAST is 2.2%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 2.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OWASP Zap	2.7%
Checkmarx SAST	2.2%
Other	95.1%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Tharindu Malwenna

Senior Application Security Engineer at a newspaper with 5,001-10,000 employees

Has supported early vulnerability detection but requires tuning to reduce false positives and scanning delays

When assessing the accuracy and efficiency of Checkmarx SAST scanning capabilities, they are currently recommending that doing the full scan is the main, correct way of scanning the repositories. However, based on the repository size we have, it sometimes takes more than 10 minutes for larger repositories, which is a downside. The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities. Those are the major things that we have to fine-tune from our end. I would rate Checkmarx SAST around a seven, as it does have some false positives we have to work with, which are the major concerning things. The number of false positives is significant because we cannot implement policies because of this.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

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 detailed reports from Checkmarx SAST help with our security process by showing details about which line is actually vulnerable, which is beneficial for the developers, and I do not have any suggestions or inputs on that area."

"The CX1 is a unified platform that covers all components such as SAST, SCA, DAST, container scanning, and infrastructure code, which is quite beneficial because some clients need one-stop solutions for all their needs."

"This helps us a lot in identifying vulnerabilities in early stages, and the integration within the IDEs helps developers get the results into their IDE itself, making it easier for them to fix vulnerabilities."

"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."

"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."

"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."

"The product has improved our application security engagement, helps with our in-house review so we sometimes don't need an external third-party tester, and once we get it from OWASP Zap, we have an idea of the inherent vulnerabilities in the application, which is a plus to save cost and improve our application accuracy practice."

"The API is exceptional."

"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."

"We use the solution for security testing."

"We use OWASP Zap for web application security scanning."

"Technical support is excellent."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."

"The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, as some of the test folders tend to give us false positives, which makes a huge impact on the vulnerabilities."

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."

"I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in communication."

"The main challenge with Checkmarx SAST is the price. The price is a challenge because Checkmarx SAST is a very big brand, and many mid-sized companies cannot afford it as they are very price-conscious."

"Right now, I can't give it off to a team and expect them to give me a report that I'm happy with."

"I would recommend this product to people although I think it is very difficult to deploy and we also have issues with maintenance."

"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."

"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."

"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."

"Sometimes, we get some false positives."

"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."

"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"The tool is open source."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"This solution is open source and free."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

University

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	22

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?

We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?

I believe that nothing in particular could be improved about Checkmarx SAST, only the turnaround time and the fact that technical account managers keep moving around, which leads to some lag in com...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?

I manage the application security side of the products here, currently utilizing solutions such as Checkmarx, Akamai, Traceable, and Invicti, which are the security scanning tools that we use. In t...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

What needs improvement with OWASP Zap?

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postm...

See all answers

Comparisons

Checkmarx One vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 14% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 9% of the time

Snyk vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 9% of the time

SonarQube vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Checkmarx SAST

Compared 4% of the time

More Checkmarx SAST Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 6% of the time

Rapid7 AppSpider vs OWASP Zap

Compared 3% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST

August 2026

Download Checkmarx SAST product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

July 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

SAST

No data available

Overview

Checkmarx SAST provides advanced static application security testing by identifying vulnerabilities in source code. It's ideal for ISOs, security professionals, and developers striving to secure applications during development.

Checkmarx SAST is known for its powerful code scanning capabilities that integrate seamlessly into existing development environments. It supports a wide range of programming languages, which makes it applicable for diverse development projects. Some users suggest improvements in the scan performance speed and enhanced support in handling false positives to further optimize workflow efficiency.

What are the standout features of Checkmarx SAST?

Language Support: Offers broad language support catering to multiple coding frameworks.
Integration Flexibility: Seamlessly integrates with existing CI/CD pipelines and developer tools.
Comprehensive Scanning: Detects security vulnerabilities early in the development process.
Detailed Reporting: Provides comprehensive reports that help prioritize remediation efforts.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Improved Security Posture: Enhances application security by catching vulnerabilities early.
Cost Efficiency: Reduces costs associated with post-deployment issue resolution.
Developer Empowerment: Allows developers to identify and fix issues independently.
Regulatory Compliance: Assists in meeting compliance requirements efficiently.

Implemented across various industries, Checkmarx SAST supports sectors like finance, healthcare, and technology with their stringent security requirements. By integrating seamlessly into existing workflows, it ensures that applications remain secure while not disrupting industry-specific processes.

Checkmarx

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx SAST vs. OWASP Zap

August 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx SAST vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx SAST vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx SAST vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.