Veracode vs Checkmarx vs Fortify

Introduction

Modern software teams have a buffet of security tools to choose from. Veracode, Checkmarx, and Fortify are three heavyweight application security platforms often considered by technical leaders. Each promises to secure your code and catch vulnerabilities early. But choosing the right one matters: it impacts developer workflow, security coverage, and how much time your team spends chasing false alarms. In this comparison, we’ll break down where each tool shines, where they fall short, and why the alternative – Aikido Security – might just give you a better way to ship secure code without the usual headaches.

TL;DR

Veracode, Checkmarx, and Fortify all help secure your codebase, but each has blind spots. Veracode offers a broad security toolkit (SAST, DAST, SCA) with an enterprise compliance focus, but it’s cloud-only and can be slow. Checkmarx provides developer-friendly static analysis (no build needed) and flexible deployment, yet it misses some layers like runtime and secrets. Fortify is an on-premise veteran known for deep code scanning, but it’s heavyweight – prone to noise and requires serious upkeep. Aikido Security brings all these worlds together in one platform – covering code, open-source, cloud and containers – with far fewer false positives and smoother integration. It’s the no-nonsense choice for modern dev teams that want security without the BS.

Overview of Each Tool

Veracode

Veracode is a cloud-based application security platform designed for enterprise needs. It performs static application security testing (SAST) by analyzing compiled binaries rather than raw source code. This approach means you upload your built application to Veracode’s cloud for scanning. Veracode’s suite has expanded to include dynamic scanning (DAST) and software composition analysis (SCA for open-source libraries). The platform emphasizes security policy compliance and governance, making it popular with security teams in large organizations. In short, Veracode covers a broad range of tests and supports many languages, but as a fully managed SaaS, it requires sending code to their cloud and can feel oriented more toward infosec oversight than developer convenience.

Checkmarx

Checkmarx is an application security platform focused on static code analysis. Unlike Veracode, Checkmarx scans your source code directly without needing a full build. This makes it convenient to catch issues early and often – developers can run scans during development or in CI pipelines without packaging the app. Checkmarx started with SAST and later added its own SCA for dependencies, plus newer features like infrastructure-as-code and container scanning. It offers both on-premises and cloud (SaaS) deployment options, giving teams flexibility on where scanning runs. The tool is known for being developer-friendly, with IDE plugins and integrations into GitHub/GitLab, Jenkins, and other dev tools for a smoother workflow. Overall, Checkmarx positions itself as a dev-centric AST solution that fits into DevOps pipelines, though it historically lacked a built-in dynamic scanner (they’ve started addressing this gap).

Fortify

Fortify (now under OpenText, formerly Micro Focus/HPE Fortify) is a long-standing enterprise SAST suite. It provides deep static analysis through Fortify Static Code Analyzer, typically run on-premises by the customer. Fortify scans source code (or binaries after a build step) to find vulnerabilities with a comprehensive set of rules. It has been a Magic Quadrant leader for over a decade, known for very thorough coverage of security issues. Fortify also offers a dynamic testing component (WebInspect) and can integrate open-source vulnerability scanning via add-ons (e.g. a “Debricked” SCA module) for a more complete security coverage. The platform supports a wide range of languages and frameworks, suitable for legacy and modern apps alike. However, Fortify is often described as heavyweight – it may require dedicated infrastructure and even a team to manage scans and triage results. An upside of this maturity is robust enterprise features and reporting. In summary, Fortify is a powerful all-around application security solution with an on-prem emphasis, though its age shows in a more complex user experience and the need to tame false positives.

(Now let’s dig deeper into how these tools stack up across key factors that tech leaders care about.)

Core Security Capabilities

Scanning Approach & Types: All three tools perform static analysis (SAST) to catch coding vulnerabilities, but their approaches differ. Veracode uses a binary SAST approach – you upload compiled code and it analyzes the binaries. This can find issues across the whole application (including linked libraries) and sometimes catches things source-level analysis might miss. The trade-off is speed: binary scans are often slower and make it harder to pinpoint the exact source line of a flaw. Checkmarx and Fortify both scan source code directly. Checkmarx’s source SAST means no build needed, enabling quicker scans in development cycles. Fortify’s static analysis also works on source, though it often requires an intermediate build output for certain analyses (e.g. it might need compiled artifacts or bytecode to thoroughly trace data flows). In practice, Fortify’s scan process can be quite involved, while Checkmarx aims for a more straightforward code scan.

Beyond SAST, Veracode and Fortify provide dynamic application security testing (DAST) for running web apps – Veracode Dynamic Analysis and Fortify WebInspect, respectively. Checkmarx historically lacked a DAST offering built-in, though the new Checkmarx One platform has introduced some DAST capabilities (not as battle-tested as the others). For open-source dependency scanning (SCA), all three now have solutions: Veracode Software Composition Analysis covers third-party libraries; Checkmarx has CxSCA; Fortify integrates SCA via a partnership (Debricked in Fortify on Demand).

Coverage Gaps: One area of divergence is newer security domains. Container image scanning (checking Docker images for vulnerabilities) and Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) scanning are not natively covered by Veracode, and Fortify has no prominent offering there. Checkmarx, on the other hand, added both – it offers container security scanning and an IaC scanner (powered by their open-source KICS tool). If you need to scan Kubernetes YAML, Terraform, or Dockerfiles for misconfigurations, Checkmarx has an edge. None of the three have built-in secret scanning for things like API keys in code – you’d need another tool. In short, Veracode = SAST + DAST + SCA, Checkmarx = SAST + SCA (+ IaC/Container), Fortify = SAST + DAST (+ SCA via addon). Each covers the AppSec basics well, but more modern “code to cloud” coverage is piecemeal.

Security Depth: All three have extensive vulnerability rule sets for common languages. Fortify, being a pioneer, is often regarded as having one of the most extensive vulnerability knowledge-bases (it can flag obscure issues and has many checkers). Veracode and Checkmarx also have comprehensive vulnerability libraries; Veracode’s includes a focus on policy-driven scanning (you can enforce standards and compliance requirements easily), while Checkmarx’s engine allows custom queries (you can write custom rules via CxQL to tailor what it finds). The bottom line: in pure vulnerability-finding capability, all three are reputable SAST tools – none will leave you completely exposed on OWASP Top 10 issues, for example. The differences are more about coverage breadth (open source, runtime, etc.) and practical usability of those results (which we’ll cover next).

Integration & DevOps Workflow

A security tool is only as good as its fit in your development process. Checkmarx is generally seen as the most integration-friendly for dev workflows. It offers plugins for popular IDEs (Visual Studio, Eclipse, IntelliJ, VS Code, etc.), so devs can scan code and get results without leaving their editor. It also integrates with source control (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket) and CI/CD tools like Jenkins, CircleCI, Azure DevOps – you name it. Whether you run on-prem or use Checkmarx’s cloud, it can hook into your pipeline to fail a build on high-severity bugs or create tickets automatically. This focus on meeting developers where they work means Checkmarx can insert security checks with less friction. One caveat: some users note differences between the on-prem and SaaS versions – e.g., certain new features or smoother UIs on cloud – which can affect the integration experience.

Veracode, being a SaaS platform, integrates primarily at the CI/CD stage and via its web portal. You typically upload code (in compiled form) through a pipeline plugin or script to Veracode’s platform for scanning. They provide Jenkins plugins and REST APIs to automate this. Veracode also has some IDE plugins (like a Visual Studio extension and IntelliJ plugin) for developers to do lightweight scans, but these aren’t as celebrated as Checkmarx’s IDE integrations. A common sentiment is that Veracode’s integration approach is more centralized: it’s great for enforcing scans on your main build, but not as interactive for devs writing code. It’s also tightly coupled with certain environments – for example, it’s known to work seamlessly with GitHub pipelines if you use GitHub, but it doesn’t support on-prem version control because Veracode itself doesn’t deploy on-prem. If you require on-site scanning, Veracode isn’t an option (no self-hosted deployment). This cloud-only nature simplifies integration (no server to maintain), but means your code (in binary form) must be sent out to Veracode’s servers – a deal-breaker for some sensitive projects.

Fortify offers integration points similar to Checkmarx in theory, but tends to be more labor-intensive. With Fortify, many enterprises set up a central Fortify server (SSC – Software Security Center) and possibly distribute scanners to developers’ machines. In the past, devs might run Fortify scans via a desktop client or CI plugin and upload results to the Fortify SSC portal. There are Jenkins plugins, GitHub Actions, and even IDE plugins available (Fortify has plugins for Eclipse/VS, etc.), so it can integrate into CI/CD and developer IDEs. However, Fortify’s reputation is that it often requires more manual steps or expertise to wire in properly. Some teams end up with a dedicated Fortify administration team that handles running scans and feeding results to developers. This hints that while integration is possible, Fortify doesn’t feel as seamless in a fast-paced DevOps setup – it’s a bit old-school.

To summarize, Checkmarx best fits a fast DevOps workflow with flexibility in integration and developer-facing tools. Veracode integrates well at the pipeline level but feels more like a separate step governed by security team policies (and it’s cloud-only). Fortify can integrate but often needs extra effort and doesn’t naturally encourage dev self-service (many organizations treat it as a gated scan run by security engineers). The more your team wants self-serve security embedded in development, the more you lean toward Checkmarx or a newer solution like Aikido. If your priority is a central checkpoint and you don’t mind slower cycles, Veracode or Fortify can fit, albeit with some friction.

Accuracy and Performance

One of the biggest pain points in application security testing is false positives – and here the tools differ in their track records. Fortify has often been critiqued for high false positive rates if used out-of-the-box. Users report “frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify” where one day a scan is clean and the next day it flags new issues in unchanged code. This inconsistency and noise can frustrate developers. Fortify provides a lot of depth (it tries to find many issue types), but that can mean more manual triage to separate real risks from noise. It also doesn’t inherently filter out known safe vulnerabilities in third-party libraries – Fortify won’t automatically check CVE databases for you without an add-on, so you might get an insecure function use flagged but not be told there’s a known patch, etc.

Checkmarx, in contrast, is often praised for a somewhat lower false positive rate (and you can customize rules to fine-tune it). According to G2 crowd reviews, Checkmarx’s false positive rate is considered better than Fortify’s – one summary noted Checkmarx has a lower rate of false positives, which is a big deal for developers, whereas Fortify’s false positive rate “is not as favorable”. Fewer false alarms mean developers don’t start tuning out security findings. That said, Checkmarx is not immune to noise – some devs have felt it can miss certain issues (false negatives) or still report a lot of informational issues as “vulnerabilities.” It strikes a decent balance but requires some tuning and understanding of its output. Checkmarx’s approach of scanning uncompiled code means it might flag something as vulnerable that, in reality, isn’t reachable in the built application (context it might miss without running the app). Conversely, Veracode’s binary scanning could catch issues in compiled dependencies – but it might also struggle to map findings back to the exact source lines, making developers do more work to figure out the fix.

Veracode generally has a reputation for solid accuracy once the initial scan is done. They actually perform an initial “baseline scan” that can take days, partly to let their internal AppSec team review results if you’ve paid for that service. The idea is to reduce false positives by involving security experts and to give a clean baseline going forward. This is great for accuracy – Veracode even touts that it delivers very few false positives in its results – but it means the first scan isn’t quick. Some developers have still encountered false positives with Veracode (no tool is perfect – e.g., devs on HackerNews mention getting a few false positives emails initially). But by and large, Veracode’s scanning is mature and tuned, especially for mainstream languages, resulting in good accuracy. If an organization lacks people to manually triage findings, Veracode’s approach of fewer but more vetted findings can be appealing.

In terms of performance (speed): Checkmarx, running on source code, can often scan faster for incremental changes (and can be scaled by adding more scanning machines/instances for parallel scans). Veracode’s scans involve uploading binaries and then waiting for cloud processing – the wait can be a drawback for agile teams (some have noted “slower feedback cycles” with Veracode). Fortify’s performance depends on how you deploy it; it can be quite slow on very large codebases unless you fine-tune the scan (Fortify has options to adjust scan depth). One PeerSpot user even mentioned Fortify’s scanning sometimes takes so long or is so inconsistent that results vary day by day. On the flip side, Fortify can be scaled with enough hardware and its scanning engine is quite powerful – but you might need to dedicate beefy servers to get timely results on a big monolith.

In summary, Veracode and Checkmarx tend to produce more precise results with moderate tuning, whereas Fortify might catch more edge-case issues but at the expense of a higher false positive rate and longer scan times. For a technical leader, that means Fortify could demand more team time to manage results, while Checkmarx/Veracode aim to save time by focusing on what matters (though Veracode saves time after that initial slow pass). Accuracy is vital – a tool that cries wolf too often will be ignored by developers. This is exactly why many teams seek alternatives that leverage modern techniques (like AI) to cut down the noise – which is Aikido’s philosophy.

Coverage and Scope

Language and Framework Support: Veracode, Checkmarx, and Fortify each boast support for a wide array of programming languages – covering all the usual suspects (Java, C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, C/C++, Ruby, PHP, etc.) and many less-common ones. Veracode advertises support for 30+ languages, leveraging its binary scanning to cover anything that compiles to a known format (including Android .APK files, .NET assemblies, etc.). Fortify similarly supports a long list, including older languages like COBOL and classic ASP, due to its long enterprise history. Checkmarx supports many modern languages and keeps up with new ones (e.g., it has added support for things like Go and Kotlin as they gained popularity). For most organizations, all three will cover the languages in your stack unless you have something truly esoteric.

One difference might be legacy and newer tech: Fortify often had an edge in legacy tech (because enterprises using Fortify might scan even things like PL/SQL code or mainframe languages with it). Checkmarx and Veracode have kept up with newer languages and frameworks well (Veracode’s SCA, for example, can scan Swift Package Manager dependencies, and Checkmarx can handle modern JavaScript frameworks, etc.). If you’re using niche frameworks, you’d want to verify each tool’s rule set – but generally coverage breadth is comparable.

Vulnerability Types: All three cover the OWASP Top 10 and CWE categories comprehensively. Fortify’s vulnerability categories are extensive (and sometimes overwhelming). Checkmarx and Veracode also cover a broad range of security bug types from SQL injection to insecure cookie settings. None of these tools are limited to just security bugs either – they will often flag insecure configurations in code (e.g., using weak crypto algorithms) and sometimes quality issues that could lead to security problems. Fortify and Veracode have some overlap with code quality (Fortify has checkers for reliability issues; Veracode has some quality policies) but their focus is security. Checkmarx similarly sticks to security-oriented rules (unlike a purely quality tool like SonarQube, which finds code smells).

Beyond Code: As mentioned, coverage beyond the application code itself is where differences emerge. Here’s a quick comparison table of coverage areas:

‍Compliance and Reporting: A part of “scope” is whether the tool helps with compliance frameworks (PCI, OWASP, etc.). Veracode has strong support for compliance reporting and policy management – you can set policies (e.g., “no OWASP Top10 issues above medium severity allowed”) and track compliance over time. Fortify likewise offers compliance reporting templates and integrates with enterprise GRC systems. Checkmarx has added compliance features too, but Veracode might have an edge given its focus on security teams (it was built with policy enforcement in mind). If you need to show auditors that you’re following a certain standard, any of the three can help, but Veracode and Fortify shine here.

Scalability of Scope: When you have hundreds of applications, Veracode’s cloud model handles scaling by design (you just queue more scans in their cloud). Checkmarx on-prem will require you to scale your scanning servers or use their cloud offering to handle many projects. Fortify on-prem can scale but often needs significant infrastructure and management for dozens of apps (Fortify on Demand can offload that to their cloud if you use FoD). So, if you have a very large application portfolio, consider how each platform scales to cover them all. Veracode is proven in big environments (but you pay for each app scan), Fortify can do it but might turn into a big internal project, Checkmarx scales well but you must architect it correctly or opt for their SaaS.

Developer Experience

When it comes to day-to-day use by developers, all three tools present vulnerabilities through dashboards and IDE integrations, but the usability and frustration factor differ. Checkmarx positions itself as the most developer-centric. Its UI is relatively clean and it allows devs to filter and triage issues with ease. Developers can get results in the tools they use (IDE, SCM, CI) which reduces context-switching. Checkmarx also offers Codebashing, a built-in training module, to help devs learn about the specific security mistakes they made – a nice touch to turn findings into teachable moments‍. The learning curve for basic Checkmarx scanning is not steep; you run a scan and get a list of issues with code snippets and remediation guidance. Advanced use (like writing custom queries) is more complex, but not mandatory for most. One complaint was that the on-prem Checkmarx UI felt dated (a user joked it’s “straight out of 1997” in terms of look and feel). Their newer cloud interface is more modern. Overall, developers generally find Checkmarx usable, though they might grumble about false positives or the time to manage results in larger projects.

Veracode’s developer experience is a bit more mixed. The platform’s heritage is serving security teams, so its web portal is rich with data, policy reports, and admin settings – which can overwhelm a developer who just wants to fix their bug. Veracode has improved its dev experience by providing an IDE scan plugin and pipeline integrations, but some devs find the process less interactive. You often have to log into the Veracode portal to see detailed flaw info, and the results may not always point directly to a line of source code (especially if an issue is in a compiled library). Also, because Veracode might require that full build upload, a dev waiting to see if their recent commit introduced new flaws might have to wait for a scan slot and processing. This lag can reduce the immediacy that devs today expect (we like instant linting and quick feedback). Veracode’s UI is professional, but can feel a bit clunky for triaging many issues – e.g., some users wish for more customization in reports and easier filtering (Veracode has these features, just not as intuitive). On the plus side, Veracode offers remediation guidance and even consultation services; a dev can get help from Veracode experts (if paid for) to understand a finding. So the experience for a dev new to security can actually be supportive in that sense. Just don’t expect devs to love the tool – it’s seen as necessary but not developer-delightful, if we’re honest.

Fortify is often viewed as the most cumbersome for developers. Historically, companies would run Fortify scans and then export a PDF or send a Fortify FPR (Fortify Project Results) file to developers – which is not exactly developer-friendly. Fortify does have a central web portal (SSC) where devs can log issues as fixed or mark false positives, but the UI and workflow are often described as dated or unintuitive compared to modern tools. As one security engineer politely put it, Fortify’s interface allows you to do what you need, but it’s not winning any UX awards. Developers using Fortify might be using the Fortify Scan Wizard or an IDE plugin to scan code; those tools work but can slow down the IDE and aren’t as sleek as newer offerings. Also, Fortify tends to dump a large volume of results if you don’t configure filters, which can overwhelm devs (“Where do I even start?”). The learning curve is steep – devs might need training to effectively use Fortify’s Workbench to triage findings. On a positive note, Fortify’s findings are detailed, and for those who invest time in it, it becomes manageable. But expecting developers to enthusiastically adopt Fortify without pushback is wishful – many devs see it as a chore mandated by security. This is partly why some companies supplement or replace Fortify with more dev-friendly tools now.

False Positives & Dev Morale: We have to mention again – nothing will sour developer experience more than false positives and noise. If Checkmarx or Fortify bombards devs with hundreds of “possible issues” of which only a handful matter, developers will lose trust and start ignoring the tool. Checkmarx has recognized this, touting features to reduce noise. Fortify’s answer is often to use their auditing tools to manually suppress known false flags (again, extra work). Veracode’s strategy is to reduce noise upfront and allow marking mitigations, which at least shows an understanding of dev pain.

Dev Workflow Fit: Another factor is whether devs can easily incorporate fixes and retest. With Checkmarx, a dev can fix code, run a local scan, and verify the issue is gone. With Veracode, the typical flow might be commit code, run CI, upload to Veracode, wait, then verify – a bit slower. With Fortify, maybe the dev runs a local Fortify scan which could take a while, or waits for the security team’s next scheduled scan – not ideal. So for empowering developers to own security fixes, Checkmarx (or a tool like Aikido) gives more direct control.

In summary, from a developer’s perspective: Checkmarx is the least hated – it tries to integrate into their world and reduce pain points. Veracode is respected but a bit removed – devs feel it as an external gate they have to pass, not as a helpful buddy in the IDE. Fortify is powerful but clunky – it often feels like using an old enterprise tool, and many devs will just wait for a summary from the security team rather than actively engage with Fortify themselves. If you want devs on board with AppSec, minimizing friction and noise is key. That’s why many are looking to newer solutions (like Aikido) that prioritize developer experience as much as security coverage.

Pricing and Maintenance

All three platforms are commercial products with enterprise pricing, and none would be described as cheap. In fact, cost is a common gripe across the board:

• Veracode usually charges based on the number of applications, lines of code, and scan frequency (with add-ons for additional features). Reviews often mention Veracode as “a very expensive product”. Smaller companies can rarely afford it. It’s positioned for mid-to-large enterprises with budgets for security. There’s no free tier; you pay for quality and breadth. The upside is you don’t need to maintain infrastructure – the SaaS model means your cost includes them handling the servers and updates. But if you have hundreds of apps or millions of lines of code, the bill can climb quickly (six figures is not uncommon for enterprise licenses). Veracode’s pricing is premium – one peer review flat-out said it’s “overpriced” for what it is, though they acknowledged the quality is high. Also, some features like eLearning or manual pen testing are extra.
• Checkmarx also isn’t cheap. It typically licenses per user or per code base module. One report indicated that for ~250 developers, the cost was around $500k– which gives a ballpark of how enterprise deals can go. Checkmarx has multiple modules (SAST, SCA, etc.) which might be licensed separately or as a bundle. If you go with the on-prem version, remember you’ll need to allocate servers (which is an indirect cost, though not huge in context). The SaaS offering shifts that to a subscription fee. Checkmarx doesn’t really have a “community” edition either (except some free tools like a limited open-source KICS for IaC scanning). So, budget-wise, assume it’s in the same league as Veracode. Some say the investment is justified by the security coverage, but it can be a hard pill to swallow for smaller organizations.
• Fortify pricing can vary because it’s often sold as part of bigger contracts (especially back in HP/Micro Focus days). Traditionally, Fortify on-prem was licensed by number of lines of code or per scan or per seat – and it was costly. Fortify on Demand (the SaaS) might be subscription per app or per enterprise package. There isn’t public pricing, but it’s enterprise software – expect enterprise prices. Fortify also has hidden costs in terms of maintenance: if self-hosted, you need people to manage updates, tune rules, maintain the servers, etc. Many organizations literally have a dedicated Fortify admin or hire consultants for deployment. This adds to total cost of ownership. On the plus side, Fortify’s on-prem license, once bought, can scan unlimited times without incremental cost, and you aren’t sending code to a third party (important for some). But if you don’t continuously renew support, the tool can quickly become outdated as new vulnerabilities and languages emerge.

Support costs are another consideration: all three vendors offer support and consulting services. Checkmarx and Veracode premium support can cost extra. Fortify’s standard support is typically included with license renewal, but you might pay extra for things like training.

Aikido Security’s pricing is positioned to be simpler and more predictable. While we won’t quote exact numbers here, Aikido prides itself on a flat, transparent pricing model that is often significantly more affordable at scale than legacy tools. There are no surprise add-on fees for each extra feature – you get the full platform without nickel-and-diming. For a technical leader, this means easier budgeting and the possibility of covering your whole dev team and codebase without breaking the bank. Compared to Veracode or Checkmarx which “come with a premium price tag” for enterprise features, Aikido offers a lot more value for money. It’s built to be a single platform that could replace multiple tools (SAST, SCA, DAST, etc.), so companies save by consolidation as well.

In short, be prepared: Veracode, Checkmarx, and Fortify require a serious budget (and their cost usually scales with your size). If you’re a smaller team, they might be out of reach or overkill. If you’re a larger org, factor in not just the licensing but the manpower to manage whichever solution you choose. And remember, a tool that saves developer time or prevents a breach can pay for itself – but only if it’s used effectively. That’s why many are looking at the new generation like Aikido, which promises lower total cost of ownership by reducing tool sprawl and admin toil, while also being easier on the wallet up front.

Pros and Cons of Veracode, Checkmarx, and Fortify

Veracode – Pros:

• Comprehensive AST suite: Offers static, dynamic, and composition analysis in one platform for broad vulnerability coverage.
• Strong security governance: Excellent for policy enforcement, compliance tracking, and executive-level reports (PCI, OWASP, etc.) built-in.
• Cloud convenience: SaaS delivery means no infrastructure to manage; scales to many apps easily and includes expert support options for remediation.
• Binary scanning catches more: Analyzing compiled code can find issues in integrated components and ensure third-party libraries are scanned as part of the whole application.

Veracode – Cons:

• No on-prem option: Requires uploading code binaries to the cloud; not viable for highly sensitive codebases that must stay on-prem.
• Slow scan turnaround: Initial scans can be slow (baseline review may take days) and even subsequent scans add pipeline latency, slowing feedback to developers.
• Developer integration is limited: Focuses more on central scanning than in-IDE feedback – devs often have to use the portal, and the experience is geared toward security teams rather than dev workflow.
• High cost for enterprise: Pricing is on the premium side (“very expensive” by multiple accounts) and can be hard to justify for smaller teams.

Checkmarx – Pros:

• Developer-friendly static analysis: Scans source code without a build, giving faster feedback and easier integration into CI/CD and IDEs.
• Flexible deployment: Available as both on-premises and SaaS – suitable for cloud pipelines or self-hosted environments, as needed.
• Broad language and security coverage: Supports many languages and covers SAST and SCA, plus extras like IaC and container security scanning for more holistic AppSec.
• Customizable and extensible: Allows custom query rules and has features like Codebashing training; can be tailored to an organization’s specific security requirements.

Checkmarx – Cons:

• False positives still occur: While generally better than some competitors, it can report issues that aren’t true problems, requiring manual tuning and developer time to filter out noise.
• On-prem UX is dated: The older interface and workflow can feel clunky (one user likened it to 90s software); some advanced features are cloud-only, creating inconsistency.
• No full DAST or runtime protection: Primarily a static analysis tool – lacks a mature dynamic testing component and things like secrets scanning, so it doesn’t cover live app risks without additional tools.
• Expensive for large teams: Enterprise features come at a premium price (e.g., ~$500k range for a few hundred developers), and running it on-prem incurs maintenance overhead for servers and updates.

Fortify – Pros:

• Deep and thorough scanning: Very comprehensive SAST engine with one of the widest vulnerability rule sets; capable of finding obscure security issues thanks to years of refinement.
• Enterprise-grade features: Robust reporting, compliance templates, and integration with enterprise workflows (ALM, bug trackers) to support large organizations’ processes.
• Dynamic testing included: Offers a full DAST solution (WebInspect) and can be a one-stop shop for both static and dynamic application testing. Fortify has been a Gartner MQ leader for 11+ years, indicating a level of trust in its overall capabilities (if not its agility).
• Flexible deployment: Can be run completely on-premises for full data control, or used as Fortify on Demand SaaS. This allows meeting strict data privacy requirements by keeping scanning internal, if needed.

Fortify – Cons:

• High false positive noise: Known for reporting lots of potential issues – requires significant triage. Users frequently complain about scans flipping on findings with no code change. This can overwhelm devs with non-issues.
• Steep learning curve & usage effort: Complex setup and usage – often needs expert admins or consultants. The UI and tools feel clunky, which can hurt developer adoption and slow down the process.
• Maintenance heavy: Self-hosted Fortify demands upkeep (servers, databases, updates). Many organizations need a dedicated team to manage Fortify, adding to cost and complexity. The tool itself can be resource-intensive and slower on large codebases if not optimized.
• Limited modern dev workflow integration: While integrations exist, Fortify doesn’t mesh as smoothly with agile DevOps practices. Developers may treat it as a periodic gate rather than a continuous assistant, leading to security being siloed rather than embedded.

Aikido Security: The Better Alternative

Aikido Security is the modern solution that brings everything together without the baggage. It’s an all-in-one platform covering SAST, DAST, SCA, IaC, container, secrets, cloud security – you name it – in one place. Unlike the legacy tools, Aikido is built developer-first: it seamlessly integrates into your IDEs, repos, and CIco/CD pipelines, giving instant feedback with minimal noise. The platform uses smart automation (even AI) for false-positive reduction and auto-triage of findings, so your team only focuses on real issuest. With AI Autofix suggestions, Aikido can even help generate fixes for vulnerabilities, speeding up remediation.

No more juggling multiple tools or drowning in alerts – Aikido’s unified approach means one tool provides full visibility across code and cloud, with context to prioritize what matters most. It’s delivered as a developer-friendly SaaS with simple, predictable pricing (no surprise add-ons), making it significantly more affordable at scale than Veracode, Checkmarx, or Fortify. In short, Aikido gives you fewer false positives, faster scans, and a far better developer experience than the old guard. It’s the no-nonsense, developer-loved alternative for teams who want top-notch security without the usual headaches.

In the battle of Veracode vs Checkmarx vs Fortify, the winner is actually neither – it’s the new contender that combines their strengths and fixes their weaknesses. That’s Aikido: a tool that finally makes security frictionless for developers and security leaders alike, so you can ship secure code and move fast.

Start a free Trial or request a demo to explore the full solution.