Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs FOSSA comparison

Checkmarx Software Composit...

Read 15 FOSSA reviews

1,643 Views
1,577 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 5, 2024

FOSSA and Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis both compete in the realm of open-source software management. FOSSA appears to have the upper hand due to its seamless integration into build pipelines and high compatibility with developer ecosystems.

Features: FOSSA is known for its robust dependency scanning features during build-time, seamless integration into build pipelines, and high compatibility with various developer ecosystems. Checkmarx offers comprehensive security scans, early-stage vulnerability detection in open-source applications, and strong integration with developer tools.

Room for Improvement: FOSSA could enhance distribution acknowledgments, implement snippet matching, and improve security vulnerability scanning. Checkmarx needs to address the speed of updates, improve the user interface's efficiency, and offer more competitive pricing.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: FOSSA offers flexible deployment options across Public Cloud and On-premises environments with excellent support. Checkmarx supports various deployment options but has experienced some scaling and response time challenges, although the support has improved over time.

Pricing and ROI: FOSSA's pricing is competitive but mid-range, with costs often justified by the benefits provided. Checkmarx's pricing is higher with a complex licensing model. Both products are seen to generate substantial ROI, with FOSSA recognized for its operational benefits.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs. FOSSA Report (Updated: December 2025).

Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis vs. FOSSA

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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 Software Composit...

Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

10th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

FOSSA

Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

9th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Software Composition Analysis (SCA) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is 2.9%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of FOSSA is 3.1%, down from 3.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
FOSSA	3.1%
Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis	2.9%
Other	94.0%

Software Composition Analysis (SCA)

Featured Reviews

Tharindu Malwenna

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

Efficient library identification and upgrade suggestions improve application security

We have many third-party libraries in our organization. I used Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis to identify all the libraries we use and determine whether they are used or unused within the application Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis provides identification of libraries and…

Read full review

reviewer2588340

Senior Software Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Dependency management enhanced with update suggestions but lacks precise vulnerability tracking

FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually. Some other tools like Check Point or SonarQube provide exact line numbers for bugs. Also, the process in FOSSA can be quite contradicting and not very straightforward for new users.

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 tool's visual scan analysis shows me all the libraries' vulnerabilities and license types. It helps identify the most complex issues with licenses. It provides good visibility. SCA shows me all libraries that are vulnerable and the extent of their vulnerability."

"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is the comprehensive security scan."

"What's most valuable in Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis is its ability to identify vulnerabilities in open-source components, especially if some critical issues exist."

"It is very easy and user friendly. It never requires any kind of technical support. You can do everything on your own."

"I appreciate the user-friendly interface. The GUI is excellent, providing detailed information on outdated versions, including version numbers and the flow of library calls. This allows me to plan and prioritize library changes based on potential vulnerabilities, even if the affected library is indirectly used in my project. The tool offers specific guidance on addressing these issues."

"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."

"One of the strong points of this solution is that it allows you to incorporate it into a CICB pipeline. It has the ability to do incremental scans. If you scan a very large application, it might take two hours to do the initial scan. The subsequent scans, as people are making changes to the app, scan the Delta and are very fast. That's a really nice implementation. The way they have incorporated the functionality of the incremental scans is something to be aware of. It is quite good. It has been very solid. We haven't really had any issues, and it does what it advertises to do very nicely."

"The customer service and support were good."

More Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis pros

"FOSSA suggests solutions for dependency mismatches."

"I am impressed with the tool’s seamless integration and quick results."

"FOSSA is easy to use and set up, provides relatively accurate results, and doesn't require armies of people to get value from its use."

"Policies and identification of open-source licensing issues are the most valuable features. It reduces the time needed to identify open-source software licensing issues."

"I found FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine to be accurate and that it was tuned appropriately to the settings that we were looking for. The policy engine is pretty straightforward... I find it to be very straightforward to make small modifications to, but it's very rare that we have to make modifications to it. It's easy to use. It's a four-category system that handles most cases pretty well."

"The support team has just been amazing, and it helps us to have a great support team from FOSSA. They are there to triage and answer all our questions which come up by using their product."

"Their CLI tool is very efficient. It does not send your source code over to their servers. It just does fingerprinting. It is also very easy to integrate into software development practices."

"One of the things that I really like about FOSSA is that it allows you to go very granular. For example, if there's a package that's been flagged because it's subject to a license that may be conflicts with or raises a concern with one of the policies that I've set, then FOSSA enables you to go really granular into that package to see which aspects of the package are subject to which licenses. We can ultimately determine with our engineering teams if we really need this part of the package or not. If it's raising this flag, we can make really actionable decisions at a very micro level to enable the build to keep pushing forward."

More FOSSA pros

Cons

"Personally, I currently use it as a standalone tool without integrating it with other systems, and it meets my needs adequately. As a suggestion, I request on considering to add a "what if" feature to the application. Currently, when the tool identifies issues and suggests updates, if I want to explore different scenarios, I need to prepare another file, turn it into a ZIP, and run the analysis again. It would be more convenient if there was a "what if" option in the GUI. This feature could simulate a run, allowing me to quickly check the impact of changing one or more files or versions without the need for a full rerun."

"API security is an area with shortcomings that needs improvement."

"Parts of the implementation process could improve by making it more user-friendly."

"Its pricing can be improved. It is a little bit high priced. It would be better if it was a little less expensive. It is a good tool, and we're still figuring out how to fully leverage it. There are some questions regarding whether it can scan the MuleSoft code. We don't know if this is a gap in the tool or something else. This is one thing that we're just working through right now, and I am not ready to conclude that there is a weakness there. MuleSoft is kind of its own beast, and we're trying to see how we get it to work with Checkmarx."

"Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis should improve dynamic analysis."

"I have received complaints from my customers that the pricing could be improved."

"The solution could improve by determining the success factor of an upgrade, which is currently lacking."

"The quality of technical support has decreased over time, and it is not as good as it used to be."

More Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis cons

"I wish there was a way that you could have a more global rollout of it, instead of having to do it in each repository individually. It's possible, that's something that is offered now, or maybe if you were using the CI Jenkins, you'd be able to do that. But with Travis, there wasn't an easy way to do that. At least not that I could find. That was probably the biggest issue."

"For open-source management, FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine is easy to use, but the list of licenses is not as complete as we would like it to be. They should add more open-source licenses to the selection."

"The technical support has room for improvement."

"We have seen some inaccuracies or incompleteness with the distribution acknowledgments for an application, so there's certainly some room for improvement there. Another big feature that's missing that should be introduced is snippet matching, meaning, not just matching an entire component, but matching a snippet of code that had been for another project and put in different files that one of our developers may have created."

"The solution provides contextualized, actionable, intelligence that alerts us to compliance issues, but there is still a little bit of work to be done on it. One of the issues that I have raised with FOSSA is that when it identifies an issue that is an error, why is it in error? What detail can they give to me? They've improved, but that still needs some work. They could provide more information that helps me to identify the dependencies and then figure out where they originated from."

"FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually."

"On the legal and policy sides, there is some room for improvement. I know that our legal team has raised complaints about having to approve the same dependency multiple times, as opposed to having them it across the entire organization."

"I would like the FOSSA API to be broader. I would like not to have to interact with the GUI at all, to do the work that I want to do. I would like them to do API-first development, rather than a focus on the GUI."

More FOSSA cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The license model is somewhat perplexing as it comprises multiple aspects that can be confusing for customers. The model is determined by the number of registered users and the number of projects being scanned, along with a third component that adds to the complexity."

"We don't have a license. The usage is limited to one, two, three, five, or ten people. It is currently used for all projects, and there are plans to increase its usage."

"It is a little bit high priced. It would be better if it was a little less expensive."

"Pricing for Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis needs to be competitive."

"My customers need to pay for the licensing part, and they need to opt for an annual subscription."

"Its price is reasonable as compared to the market. It is competitively priced in comparison to other similar solutions on the market. It is also quite affordable in terms of the value that it delivers as compared to its alternative of hiring a team."

"FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it."

"The solution's cost is a five out of ten."

"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."

"FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch. It is very much a "you get what you pay for" scenario. Regardless of the price, I highly recommend FOSSA."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

29%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	8

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis?

The tool's visual scan analysis shows me all the libraries' vulnerabilities and license types. It helps identify the most complex issues with licenses. It provides good visibility. SCA shows me all...

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis?

Pricing is complex and high for small organizations but offers great benefits for larger organizations. It is notably different compared to competitors like GitHub Advanced Security.

What needs improvement with Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis?

The solution could improve by determining the success factor of an upgrade, which is currently lacking.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FOSSA?

The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free. You have to pay for the features you need, which I think is fair. If you want to get value for free...

What needs improvement with FOSSA?

What is your primary use case for FOSSA?

I have worked with FOSSA primarily to manage the dependencies in our projects. For example, if I take a Spring Boot application, FOSSA helps in identifying mismatches or unsupported dependencies th...

Black Duck SCA vs Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis

Comparisons

Compared 26% of the time

JFrog Xray vs Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis

Compared 18% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis

Compared 8% of the time

CAST Highlight vs Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis

Compared 3% of the time

More Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis Competitors

Black Duck SCA vs FOSSA

Compared 24% of the time

Snyk vs FOSSA

Compared 22% of the time

JFrog Xray vs FOSSA

Compared 10% of the time

Mend.io vs FOSSA

Compared 9% of the time

FossID Workbench vs FOSSA

Compared 3% of the time

More FOSSA Competitors

Product Reports

Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis

January 2026

Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis report

Download Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis product report

Download FOSSA product report

January 2026

Also Known As

CxSCA

No data available

Overview

Checkmarx Software Composition Analysis (SCA) helps organizations manage the risks associated with open source and third-party components in their software applications. While leveraging open source libraries and third-party dependencies is common practice, it can also introduce security vulnerabilities and license risks.

Checkmarx SCA offers a multifaceted approach to managing these risks by:

Automatically scanning project repositories, build configurations, and manifests to create a comprehensive inventory of all components, including version information and associated licenses.
Performing vulnerability assessments on each component, including identifying and prioritizing actual exploitable or reachable vulnerabilities.
Protecting organizations from software supply chain attacks involving malicious packages, such as the XZ Utils backdoor.
Identifying licenses associated and providing insights into license obligations, restrictions, and potential conflicts.
Integrating seamlessly into existing development workflows and CI/CD pipelines.
Providing actionable remediation guidance to help organizations address identified vulnerabilities and compliance issues effectively.

Checkmarx

Up to 90% of any piece of software is from open source, creating countless dependencies and areas of risk to manage. FOSSA is the most reliable automated policy engine for legal teams to maintain license compliance, security to fix vulnerabilities, and engineering to improve code quality across the entire software supply chain. As the only developer-native open source management platform, FOSSA fully integrates with your existing CI/CD pipeline to provide complete visibility and context earlier in the software development lifecycle. For the first time, teams can collaboratively shift left and audit, analyze, control, and remediate license issues and vulnerabilities right in their existing workflows.

Sample Customers

AXA, Liveperson, Aaron's, Playtech, Morningstar

AppDyanmic, Uber, Twitter, Zendesk, Confluent