Checkmarx vs Veracode

Quick Verdict

Checkmarx and Veracode are both Gartner Magic Quadrant Leaders for Application Security Testing, but they take fundamentally different approaches. Checkmarx scans source code directly, giving developers line-of-code findings and IDE-integrated feedback during development. Veracode scans compiled binaries, so developers never share source code with the platform, which appeals to organizations in regulated industries.

Beyond SAST, both have grown into broader platforms. Checkmarx One bundles SAST, SCA, DAST, IaC security, container security, API security, and ASPM. Veracode’s platform covers SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing. The choice often comes down to whether source-code analysis or binary analysis better fits your security program and compliance requirements.

Feature Comparison

Checkmarx vs Veracode: Head-to-Head

Analysis Method: Source Code vs Binary

This is the defining difference. Checkmarx performs source code analysis. You connect your repositories (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps) and the engine scans the code directly. Findings map to specific lines, files, and data flow paths through your source. IDE plugins surface these findings while developers are writing code.

Veracode uses binary analysis. You compile your application and upload the bytecode, JAR files, .NET assemblies, or other compiled output. The platform analyzes the binary to find security flaws. This approach has a significant advantage: it can catch issues introduced by compilers or third-party libraries bundled into the build that source-only scanners miss. It also means you never share source code with the vendor.

The tradeoff is feedback granularity. Checkmarx can point to the exact line of code causing an issue. Veracode’s binary-level findings are less precise, though they still map back to code areas. For developer workflow integration, source analysis gives tighter feedback loops. For compliance scenarios where source code sharing is restricted, binary analysis is the clear winner.

Platform Breadth

Checkmarx One is one of the broadest application security platforms available. It bundles eight scanning engines: SAST, SCA, DAST, IaC security, container security, API security, secrets detection, and malicious package protection. ASPM sits on top to prioritize and correlate findings across all engines.

Veracode’s platform covers SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing. It is less broad than Checkmarx One but still reduces tool sprawl compared to buying separate tools. Findings from all Veracode modules are correlated in a single dashboard.

Organizations that want to consolidate the most scanning types under one vendor lean toward Checkmarx. Teams that prioritize SAST with binary analysis and want DAST and SCA alongside it find Veracode sufficient.

CI/CD Speed

Veracode’s Pipeline Scan is specifically designed for speed in CI/CD. It returns results in under 90 seconds for most applications, making it practical for pull request checks without slowing down development. The full Platform Scan takes longer but provides deeper analysis for release gates and compliance reporting.

Checkmarx integrates into CI/CD through connectors for Jenkins, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Azure DevOps, and others. Scan times vary based on codebase size. Checkmarx also pushes findings to IDE plugins (VS Code, IntelliJ, Eclipse, Visual Studio, Cursor, Windsurf) for earlier feedback during development.

For teams where CI/CD scan speed is the top concern, Veracode’s Pipeline Scan has an edge. For teams that want feedback earlier in the IDE before code reaches the pipeline, Checkmarx’s broader IDE plugin ecosystem provides that.

Vulnerability Prioritization

Checkmarx’s ASPM ranks findings using application context. A critical vulnerability in a customer-facing payment service gets flagged before the same vulnerability type in an internal admin tool. This business-context-aware prioritization reduces alert fatigue when scanning large application portfolios.

Veracode provides severity ratings and CWE mapping for findings but does not include a dedicated ASPM layer for cross-application prioritization. Teams that need portfolio-level risk ranking would need to add a third-party ASPM tool.

Developer Training

Both vendors include developer education. Checkmarx offers Codebashing, a hands-on secure code training platform with exercises mapped to the vulnerabilities found in scans. Veracode offers Security Labs, and their research shows developers who complete at least one training course fix security flaws 33% faster.

Deployment

Checkmarx supports both cloud and on-premises deployment, giving organizations flexibility based on data sovereignty requirements. Veracode is cloud-only, which simplifies deployment and maintenance but means all code analysis happens on Veracode’s infrastructure. For binary analysis, this is less of a concern since source code never leaves the organization.

When to Choose Checkmarx

Choose Checkmarx if:

• You want line-of-code findings with precise source code mapping
• You need the broadest platform coverage (SAST, SCA, DAST, IaC, containers, APIs, secrets, ASPM)
• ASPM-level prioritization across your application portfolio matters
• You require on-premises deployment for compliance or data sovereignty
• Your team uses newer IDEs like Cursor or Windsurf alongside VS Code and IntelliJ
• You want developer education (Codebashing) mapped to scan findings

When to Choose Veracode

Choose Veracode if:

• Source code sharing with a third-party vendor is restricted by policy or regulation
• You prefer binary analysis that catches compiler and bundled-library issues
• Fast CI/CD feedback via Pipeline Scan (under 90 seconds) is a priority
• Cloud-only deployment with zero infrastructure maintenance fits your model
• SAST, DAST, and SCA coverage is sufficient (you don’t need IaC, container, or API scanning in the same platform)
• Manual penetration testing services from the same vendor are valuable

Both are SAST tools and Gartner Leaders. The decision often comes down to whether your organization prefers source code analysis with richer developer feedback or binary analysis that keeps source code internal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Written by

Suphi Cankurt

Suphi Cankurt is an application security enthusiast based in Helsinki, Finland. He reviews and compares 129 AppSec tools across 10 categories on AppSec Santa. Learn more.