Checkmarx vs. HeadSpin

If you are going with SAST process or want to improve overall security posture then go for it like integrating it with post deployment steps. If you are more concerned about proactive controls better choose other options such as pee-commit hooks and CI security. Also choose other tools for DAST and API scans.

Incentivized

We have been using HeadSpin for our web and mobile application testing. It is an easy-to-use solution that provides detailed and in-depth analytics from the testing results. We also get a wide range of live networks and devices to perform the testing from HeadSpin. It has an inbuilt artificial intelligence engine that helps us to get real-time scenarios simulated, which is very helpful for finding performance issues and improving the overall quality of the applications.

• Detects security vulnerabilities in source code with accuracy and detail.
• Integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, IDEs, and repositories.
• Provides clear reports and actionable fix recommendations for developers.

Incentivized

• Keep track of each browser we have tested and when we lastly updated them.
• Remove any deprecated code or plugins that may cause issues with other browsers.
• Add browser information to our site’s meta tags so that the site displays correctly in different browsers.
• Test our website on all browsers to ensure compatibility.

• Scan duration
• False positives
• Integration with other tools like Jenkins comes with some inconveniences.

Incentivized

• UI needs to be improved
• Graphs on the dashboard are a bit laggy and need detailing for a better understanding of the user

Incentivized

Their API based customizations which I leveraged to create an ASPM package, which is developer friendly and can extend above the dashboard features, other ones are UI which is great and feels clutter free. Menu and navigation is also good so as support. Only drawback is sometimes scan takes longer which I feel so can be reduced

Incentivized

Checkmarx is easier to integrate with development tools and gives quick feedback during coding, which is helpful for developers. Veracode is more focused on scanning and reporting for compliance, but it’s more complex to set up. We chose Checkmarx because it fits better into our development process, offering faster scans and more useful suggestions for fixing problems

Incentivized

Though LambdaTest was cheaper, it did not offer the deal devices and we wanted to be 100% sure that our app offers a perfect experience to all users. Simulators and emulators are not the technology we wanted to rely on.

• Improved ability to provide high level of IA confidence
• Improved confidence in application-level security

Incentivized

• Simplified the approach to test the mobile application on multiple devices from different vendors. This helped us to ensure the stability of the application in different environments.
• In-depth analysis to understand the loopholes in the application design function. This helped us to improve the application design and overall user experience.

Incentivized