Transparency alternatives to Checkmarx
Other Vulnerability management vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Checkmarx. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 39 that differ from Checkmarx on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Checkmarx has 11 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Checkmarx” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Checkmarx | Found at Checkmarx, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invictiinvicti.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Invicti | 83/100 | 9 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +6 | nothing | Compare |
| Snyksnyk.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Snyk | 74/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Status page with history, +5 | nothing | Compare |
| Rapid7rapid7.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rapid7 | 70/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +5 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Sucurisucuri.netSee also Transparency alternatives to Sucuri | 52/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Intruderintruder.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Intruder | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| SonarSourcesonarsource.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SonarSource | 57/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Holm Securityholmsecurity.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Holm Security | 52/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Mendmend.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Mend | 50/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Arnicaarnica.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Arnica | 48/100 | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +2 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Probelyprobely.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Probely | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Semgrepsemgrep.devSee also Transparency alternatives to Semgrep | 48/100 | 5 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 | nothing | Compare |
| Detectifydetectify.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Detectify | 43/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +2 | nothing | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.