Fortify vs Checkmarx One vs Veracode vs Snyk vs GitHub Code Security vs Semgrep: which enterprise AppSec platform should you choose in 2026?

• vulnerabilities in first-party code;
• vulnerable or non-compliant open-source dependencies;
• exposed credentials in repositories and Git history;
• insecure Terraform, Kubernetes or CloudFormation;
• vulnerable operating-system and application packages in container images;
• exploitable weaknesses in a running web application or API;
• ownership, policy enforcement, exceptions and reporting across thousands of repositories.

No single use of the word scanner automatically covers all of those layers.

The most frequently shortlisted enterprise platforms include:

• OpenText Fortify;
• Checkmarx One;
• Veracode;
• Snyk;
• GitHub Code Security and GitHub Secret Protection, still documented as GitHub Advanced Security products;
• Semgrep.

Organisations may also consider:

• SonarQube Advanced Security;
• Burp Suite DAST;
• Invicti.

This article does not create invented scores, repeat vendor accuracy percentages as independent facts or select a winner by counting product-page checkmarks.

The best AppSec product is not the one with the longest feature table. It is the product, or combination of products, that finds material issues in the organisation’s real technology stack, fits its deployment and data requirements, and leads to remediation rather than an unmanaged alert backlog.

Product scope and documentation were verified on 23 July 2026.

TL;DR

Scenario	Natural starting point
Regulated enterprise, legacy technology, deployment control, established SAST and DAST	Fortify
One broad platform for code, dependencies, IaC, secrets, containers, API and DAST	Checkmarx One
Centrally managed SAST, SCA, DAST, container, IaC and secrets programme	Veracode
Developer-first code, open source, containers, IaC and current DAST/API capabilities	Snyk
GitHub-centred engineering organisation	GitHub Code Security + Secret Protection
Custom rules and developer-friendly SAST, SCA and secrets	Semgrep
Organisation already using SonarQube as a quality gate	SonarQube Advanced Security
Dedicated enterprise web and API DAST	Burp Suite DAST or Invicti, evaluated separately

This is a fit map, not a list of unconditional winners.

1. Separate the testing methods first

OWASP ASVS provides an open basis for defining security verification requirements and levels of assurance. It does not suggest that one automated tool can verify every control.

SAST

Static Application Security Testing analyses source code, bytecode or build artefacts without attacking a running application.

It may identify:

• untrusted data reaching dangerous sinks;
• unsafe APIs;
• injection paths;
• cryptographic mistakes;
• hardcoded credentials;
• selected authorisation and business-logic patterns.

A SAST finding does not automatically prove runtime exploitability.

SCA

Software Composition Analysis inventories dependencies, versions, known vulnerabilities and licences.

SAST: is the organisation’s own code unsafe?
SCA: does the application use a vulnerable or non-compliant component?

They are different tests and should be licensed, measured and reported separately.

Secrets scanning

Secrets products look for passwords, API keys, tokens and other credentials in current files, repository history and, in some products, before code is pushed.

IaC scanning

Infrastructure-as-Code scanning analyses Terraform, Kubernetes, Helm, CloudFormation, ARM and similar declarations for insecure configuration.

Container scanning

Container security may inspect:

• the base operating system;
• installed packages;
• application dependencies;
• Dockerfile instructions;
• image configuration;
• Kubernetes workloads;
• deployed context.

DAST

Dynamic Application Security Testing interacts with a running application from the outside. OWASP describes DAST as a black-box method that communicates with the application through its web interface.

It can identify runtime weaknesses, deployment mistakes, injection flaws, XSS, session problems and API vulnerabilities that static analysis may not reproduce.

DAST does not see the source code and does not replace code review or SAST.

ASPM and governance

Application Security Posture Management correlates findings, maps applications to owners, applies policies and reports risk at portfolio level.

A shared dashboard is useful, but it does not prove that every underlying engine has equal depth.

2. Comparison method

A capability is included only when confirmed by current official vendor documentation.

The comparison does not treat the following as independent evidence:

• sponsored rankings;
• reseller summaries;
• undocumented accuracy claims;
• “zero false positive” statements;
• awards;
• benchmark numbers published without reproducible configuration.

Matrix symbols

Symbol	Meaning
●	confirmed native capability in the current offering
◐	narrower capability, separate package or coverage through another module
-	no confirmed native module in the evaluated offering
POC	quality cannot be established without testing the organisation’s own stack

3. Capability matrix

Platform	SAST	SCA	Secrets	IaC	Containers	DAST / runtime API	Governance
Fortify	●	●	◐	-	-	●	●
Checkmarx One	●	●	●	●	●	●	●
Veracode	●	●	●	●	●	●	●
Snyk	●	●	◐	●	●	●	●
GitHub Code Security + Secret Protection	●	●	●	-	-	-	●
Semgrep	●	●	●	-	-	-	●
SonarQube Advanced Security	●	●	●	-	-	-	●
Burp Suite DAST	-	-	-	-	-	●	●
Invicti	-	-	-	-	-	●	●

The matrix describes scope, not detection quality.

A suite with native SAST and DAST does not automatically outperform a carefully integrated repository scanner and specialist DAST. Conversely, a multi-vendor stack creates integration, deduplication and governance costs.

4. OpenText Fortify

The current Fortify family includes separate products for:

• SAST;
• DAST;
• Software Composition Analysis;
• managed Fortify on Demand services.

OpenText presents Fortify SAST as an enterprise product with flexible deployment options. Fortify DAST tests live applications, APIs and services. Fortify Software Composition Analysis is a separate open-source component analysis product. Fortify on Demand offers managed SAST, DAST and MAST services.

Naming trap: two meanings of SCA

The historical product name Fortify Static Code Analyzer was frequently abbreviated to “Fortify SCA”.

In modern AppSec, SCA normally means Software Composition Analysis.

Procurement and architecture documents should explicitly distinguish:

Fortify SAST / Static Code Analyzer
Fortify Software Composition Analysis

They do not perform the same analysis.

Where Fortify fits well

• large regulated organisations;
• mixed modern and legacy estates;
• teams requiring deployment control;
• programmes needing both SAST and DAST;
• long-lived Java, .NET, C/C++, COBOL and similar systems;
• organisations considering SaaS through Fortify on Demand or managed infrastructure.

OpenText’s SAST 26.2 release added or expanded support for COBOL, Fortran, C++23, PHP 8.5, Kotlin 2.3 and Swift 6.3.

POC questions

• full and incremental scan time;
• build preparation and artefact requirements;
• pull-request feedback quality;
• memory and CPU requirements;
• self-managed operational effort;
• custom-rule lifecycle;
• handling of IaC and containers if those are in scope;
• developer triage experience.

Fortify’s enterprise fit does not make it the automatic winner for a small cloud-native engineering organisation.

5. Checkmarx One

Checkmarx One is positioned as a broad Application Security platform spanning development through runtime.

Official materials confirm capabilities including:

• SAST;
• SCA;
• secrets detection;
• IaC security;
• API Security;
• Container Security;
• DAST;
• software supply-chain security.

Principal advantage

Checkmarx One is a natural candidate when procurement aims to reduce the number of AppSec vendors.

One platform can cover:

first-party code
+ dependencies
+ secrets
+ IaC
+ containers
+ APIs
+ running applications

What the product page cannot answer

Breadth does not establish depth.

A POC must separately test:

• SAST on the organisation’s critical languages and frameworks;
• reachability and dependency-path quality in SCA;
• IaC rule coverage;
• private registries and internal base images;
• authenticated DAST;
• OpenAPI and GraphQL workflows;
• cross-module correlation;
• source-code processing and data residency.

Best fit

• organisations seeking one strategic AppSec vendor;
• large portfolios with many teams and languages;
• programmes needing code-to-runtime coverage;
• central security teams that want consolidated governance.

Checkmarx One should win only after its most important modules prove suitable, not merely because the platform contains the most product categories.

6. Veracode

Veracode’s current platform includes confirmed products and workflows for:

• SAST;
• SCA;
• DAST;
• Container Security;
• IaC scanning;
• secrets detection;
• central policy and risk management.

Veracode SAST analyses application artefacts, DAST tests running applications and APIs, and Veracode Container Security scans containers, IaC files and exposed secrets.

Strengths

• centrally managed platform;
• static, composition and dynamic testing in one programme;
• container, IaC and secrets coverage through Container Security;
• policy and reporting;
• reduced need to operate scanning infrastructure;
• natural fit for organisations preferring managed services.

Architectural issue to test

Veracode static workflows may require packaged artefacts, bytecode or build outputs depending on the language and scan type.

A valid POC must reproduce the organisation’s real build pipeline, not just upload a small demonstration project.

POC questions

• time from commit to useful result;
• artefact packaging effort;
• Pipeline Scan versus full policy scan behaviour;
• monorepo support;
• self-hosted SCM and CI integration;
• source and artefact data handling;
• internal application access;
• practical container, IaC and secrets coverage.

Best fit

Veracode is a strong candidate for organisations seeking a managed, policy-driven AppSec programme across source, dependencies, runtime and infrastructure artefacts.

7. Snyk

Snyk’s current platform is broader than its historical reputation as a dependency scanner.

Official products include:

• Snyk Code for SAST;
• Snyk Open Source for SCA and licence compliance;
• Snyk Container;
• Snyk IaC;
• Snyk API & Web, a cloud-based DAST product for running applications and APIs.

Snyk also provides programme-level risk and prioritisation capabilities.

Strengths

• IDE, CLI, SCM and CI/CD integration;
• developer-oriented remediation guidance;
• code, dependency, container, IaC and runtime coverage;
• reachability and contextual prioritisation in selected products;
• natural alignment with cloud-native and platform-engineering teams.

Important 2026 correction

The statement “Snyk does not have DAST” is outdated.

Snyk API & Web is currently documented as a cloud-based DAST solution.

It should therefore be evaluated against Burp Suite DAST, Invicti, Fortify DAST, Checkmarx DAST and Veracode DAST rather than excluded from the category.

Secrets nuance

Snyk Code documentation confirms hardcoded-secret detection in SAST, while current Snyk product updates also refer to Snyk Secrets. Packaging and standalone coverage should be confirmed during procurement rather than assumed from an older licence model.

POC questions

• language and framework support;
• scan speed on real repositories;
• fix suggestion quality;
• transitive dependency handling;
• private registries and custom base images;
• Terraform, Kubernetes, Helm and CloudFormation;
• authenticated DAST and complex APIs;
• data-hosting regions;
• total cost across several modules.

Best fit

• cloud-native organisations;
• container- and IaC-heavy environments;
• teams prioritising developer workflow;
• programmes seeking broad coverage without beginning with a traditional heavyweight SAST deployment.

8. GitHub Code Security and GitHub Secret Protection

GitHub currently separates paid security products into:

• GitHub Code Security;
• GitHub Secret Protection.

The documentation still groups them as GitHub Advanced Security products.

GitHub Code Security includes code scanning, CodeQL, premium Dependabot capabilities and dependency review.

GitHub Secret Protection includes secret scanning, push protection and custom patterns.

CodeQL is GitHub’s code-analysis engine. Dependabot can open pull requests to update vulnerable dependencies.

Principal advantage

Findings appear where developers already:

• open pull requests;
• review diffs;
• apply branch protection;
• run Actions;
• manage repository ownership.

This can reduce adoption friction substantially.

What GitHub does not replace

The native offer is not a substitute for:

• enterprise DAST;
• authenticated runtime workflows;
• a complete IaC security suite;
• a complete container security platform;
• manual penetration testing.

GitHub code scanning can ingest SARIF results from third-party tools. Ingesting the result does not mean GitHub performed the underlying test.

Best fit

• GitHub is the organisation-wide engineering platform;
• security must appear in pull requests;
• CodeQL supports critical languages;
• the organisation accepts a separate runtime DAST and, where necessary, IaC/container products.

A common stack is:

GitHub Code Security
+ GitHub Secret Protection
+ specialist DAST
+ optional IaC and container scanner

9. Semgrep

Semgrep AppSec Platform confirms three core products:

• Semgrep Code for SAST;
• Semgrep Supply Chain for SCA;
• Semgrep Secrets.

The platform integrates with source-control and CI systems, applies policies and can block selected findings in pull requests.

Principal advantage: custom guardrails

Semgrep is well suited to organisation-specific rules for:

• internal frameworks;
• approved security wrappers;
• unsafe helper functions;
• authorisation patterns;
• architecture standards;
• prohibited APIs.

Simplified example:

rules:
  - id: internal-unsafe-query
    message: Use the approved parameterized database wrapper.
    severity: ERROR
    languages: [javascript]
    patterns:
      - pattern: db.raw($QUERY)

The ability to turn an internal security observation into a live repository rule can be more valuable than thousands of generic checks.

Strengths

• fast developer feedback;
• customisable rules;
• SAST, SCA and secrets in one platform;
• good fit for modern repositories and monorepos;
• developer-centred enforcement.

Limits

Semgrep is not a native enterprise DAST and does not replace:

• authenticated runtime testing;
• web crawling;
• live API attacks;
• complete container security;
• a dedicated IaC suite.

Best fit

• custom rules are strategic;
• developer experience is a priority;
• the organisation accepts a composable tool stack;
• a separate DAST and infrastructure scanner are planned.

10. SonarQube Advanced Security

SonarQube has historically been associated with code quality and static analysis.

In 2026, SonarQube Advanced Security adds:

• Advanced SAST;
• Software Composition Analysis;
• additional security and compliance capabilities.

Current release notes also document continued secrets-rule improvements.

Where it fits

If SonarQube is already an enforced quality gate, extending the existing platform can be operationally simpler than adding another repository dashboard.

What it does not become

SonarQube Advanced Security is not automatically:

• a DAST platform;
• authenticated web testing;
• a complete container scanner;
• a full IaC security suite.

It is a serious consolidation option for source and supply-chain security, but it is not equivalent to a code-to-runtime suite.

11. Burp Suite DAST and Invicti

DAST deserves a separate POC because quality depends on:

• crawl coverage;
• SPA handling;
• authentication;
• session renewal;
• multistep workflows;
• API discovery;
• OpenAPI, GraphQL and SOAP;
• scan safety;
• finding validation;
• internal network access.

Burp Suite DAST

PortSwigger documents:

• CI-driven scanning for container-capable CI/CD platforms;
• cloud and self-hosted deployment;
• GraphQL and REST integration APIs.

Its relationship with the broader Burp ecosystem used by penetration testers may be operationally useful.

Invicti

Invicti is a dedicated enterprise web and API DAST platform. Official material describes API discovery, stateful scanning and proof-based validation.

Vendor percentages concerning accuracy should not be copied into procurement scoring without an independent, reproducible test.

Which is better?

The product pages cannot answer that question.

A POC must include:

• SSO;
• MFA;
• token refresh;
• several roles;
• multistep business flows;
• SPA navigation;
• REST and GraphQL;
• uploads;
• internal endpoints;
• data-safety controls.

12. Organisational fit matrix

Criterion	Fortify	Checkmarx One	Veracode	Snyk	GitHub	Semgrep
Regulated enterprise and legacy	strong fit	credible fit	credible fit	stack-dependent	repository layer	repository layer
One broad platform	broad	very broad	broad	very broad	no	no
Developer-first workflow	POC	POC	POC	strong profile	strongest inside GitHub	strong profile
Deployment control	strong candidate	verify model	managed-platform profile	verify by module	GHES for supported features	enterprise options
Legacy-language estate	strong profile	POC	POC	POC	CodeQL-dependent	language-dependent
IaC and containers	separate products needed	native modules	native Container Security module	native modules	separate products	separate products
Native DAST	yes	yes	yes	yes	no	no
Custom SAST rules	available, test lifecycle	POC	POC	POC	CodeQL queries	core strength

Every “strong profile” still requires a POC.

13. Can one winner be named?

Not responsibly.

It is possible to create useful shortlists.

Shortlist A: broad single-vendor platform

Checkmarx One
Snyk
Veracode
Fortify

Use organisation-specific weighting:

SAST               25%
SCA                15%
DAST and API       20%
IaC and containers 15%
developer UX       10%
governance         10%
deployment/data     5%

If the organisation does not need IaC, that category should have zero weight.

Shortlist B: GitHub-native

GitHub Code Security
GitHub Secret Protection
+ Burp Suite DAST or Invicti
+ specialist IaC/container security where required

Shortlist C: custom developer guardrails

Semgrep Code + Supply Chain + Secrets
+ specialist DAST
+ separate IaC/container scanner

Shortlist D: legacy and controlled deployment

Fortify SAST + DAST + Software Composition Analysis

Shortlist E: existing SonarQube estate

SonarQube Advanced Security
+ specialist DAST
+ IaC/container security where required

14. How to run a fair POC

OWASP Benchmark contains test suites and scoring tools for evaluating the accuracy, coverage and speed of automated vulnerability-detection tools.

It should not be the only basis for a decision:

• many cases are synthetic;
• the Java benchmark has not substantially changed its test cases for years;
• the Python benchmark has a different maturity level;
• it does not measure developer workflow;
• it does not measure governance;
• it does not represent internal frameworks.

OWASP Juice Shop is an intentionally vulnerable Node.js, Express and Angular application useful for testing scanners against a JavaScript-heavy frontend and REST APIs.

Minimum test set

1. OWASP Benchmark for a supported language.
2. OWASP Juice Shop for DAST.
3. A representative internal application.
4. A real-size monorepo.
5. A repository containing:
   • vulnerable dependencies;
   • a current secret;
   • a secret in Git history;
   • Dockerfile;
   • Terraform;
   • Kubernetes;
   • generated code.
6. A running environment containing:
   • SSO;
   • several roles;
   • REST and GraphQL;
   • file upload;
   • a multistep workflow.

15. POC metrics

Detection

• true positives;
• false positives;
• false negatives;
• duplicates;
• unreachable findings;
• reachable dependency vulnerabilities.

Performance

• first full-scan duration;
• pull-request scan duration;
• one-line-change duration;
• CPU and memory;
• monorepo behaviour;
• parallel capacity.

Remediation

• source and sink clarity;
• complete data flow;
• framework-aware guidance;
• developer ability to validate without AppSec assistance;
• whether automated fixes pass tests;
• percentage dismissed as not applicable.

Governance

• RBAC;
• SSO and SCIM;
• audit log;
• business-unit policies;
• expiring exceptions;
• SLAs;
• application ownership;
• ticketing integration;
• data export and API;
• compliance reporting.

Deployment and data

• SaaS, self-hosted or hybrid;
• data region;
• whether source leaves the organisation;
• artefact retention;
• private registries;
• internal application scanning;
• proxy and air-gapped support;
• encryption and retention.

Total cost

TCO =
licence
+ infrastructure
+ onboarding
+ tuning
+ triage
+ integration
+ rule maintenance
+ support
+ developer time

A cheap scanner with an unmanaged backlog can be more expensive than a higher-priced platform.

16. Common procurement mistakes

Buying by language count

“Language support” may mean only parsing, or it may mean deep interprocedural data flow and framework models. Test the organisation’s frameworks.

Combining SAST and SCA

They are different methods. Fortify’s historical product abbreviation makes this confusion particularly easy.

Giving every module equal weight

A Terraform module should not improve a score for an organisation that does not use Terraform.

Testing only a public demo app

A small benchmark does not reproduce a custom framework, monorepo, internal package system, SSO or private network.

Ignoring developer experience

A technically capable tool can fail adoption because of:

• hours-long feedback;
• no pull-request context;
• unclear remediation;
• poor suppression workflow;
• unstable builds.

Believing marketing false-positive rates

Without a public dataset, version, configuration and definition, the percentage is not comparable.

Buying DAST without authentication validation

A scanner that cannot authenticate may test only the small public surface.

17. Recommendations by organisation type

Bank, insurer or public administration

Shortlist:

• Fortify;
• Checkmarx One;
• Veracode.

Priorities:

• deployment and data;
• legacy languages;
• audit and compliance;
• SAST and DAST;
• long-term support.

SaaS company on GitHub

Shortlist:

• GitHub Code Security + Secret Protection;
• Snyk;
• Semgrep;
• separate Burp Suite DAST or Invicti.

Priorities:

• pull-request feedback;
• scan speed;
• dependency updates;
• secrets;
• API and DAST;
• developer friction.

Cloud-native Kubernetes and Terraform organisation

Shortlist:

• Snyk;
• Checkmarx One;
• Veracode;
• or a GitHub/Semgrep stack plus specialist infrastructure security.

Priorities:

• SCA;
• containers;
• IaC;
• private registries;
• runtime context;
• DAST/API.

Existing SonarQube programme

Shortlist:

• SonarQube Advanced Security;
• GitHub Code Security;
• Semgrep;
• specialist DAST.

The decision is whether quality-and-security consolidation matters more than a broader one-vendor portfolio.

18. Final verdict

Broadest natural single-vendor candidate

Checkmarx One has a broad officially confirmed portfolio covering code, open source, secrets, IaC, containers, API and DAST.

That earns it a POC, not an automatic victory.

Natural fit for legacy and controlled enterprise

Fortify remains a strong candidate for large, regulated and technologically diverse organisations.

Managed code-to-runtime programme

Veracode is a logical candidate for organisations preferring a centrally managed platform covering SAST, SCA, DAST, containers, IaC and secrets.

Cloud-native developer-first platform

Snyk now has confirmed Code, Open Source, Container, IaC and API & Web DAST products. Comparisons that state it lacks DAST are outdated.

Lowest friction inside GitHub

GitHub Code Security and Secret Protection integrate deeply with repositories and pull requests but require a separate runtime DAST layer.

Custom security guardrails

Semgrep is especially attractive when the organisation wants to create and maintain custom SAST, SCA and secrets policies close to developers.

DAST

Burp Suite DAST and Invicti should be tested against the organisation’s own application. There is no reliable basis for an unconditional winner without authentication, API and workflow testing.

The best enterprise result is commonly a designed stack: repository security + supply-chain security + runtime DAST + governance.

19. Selection checklist

Scope

• Required test types are defined.
• SAST and SCA are evaluated separately.
• DAST requirements are explicit.
• Secrets requirements are explicit.
• IaC and container requirements are explicit.
• API Security scope is defined.
• Critical languages and applications are identified.

POC

• Every product scans the same code.
• Versions and configurations are recorded.
• Internal code is included.
• A monorepo is included.
• Pull-request workflow is tested.
• DAST completes authentication.
• Roles and workflows are tested.
• False positives are measured.
• False negatives are manually reviewed.
• Time to remediation is measured.

Enterprise controls

• SSO, SCIM and RBAC confirmed.
• Audit log confirmed.
• Data model and region confirmed.
• SCM and CI integration confirmed.
• Internal application access confirmed.
• Proxy and registry support confirmed.
• Retention confirmed.
• API and export confirmed.
• Exception model confirmed.
• TCO calculated.

Rollout

• Finding owners are assigned.
• Risk-based SLAs are defined.
• New-code policy is separated from historical backlog.
• Gates block only high-confidence issues.
• Rule-tuning process exists.
• Exceptions expire.
• DAST and SAST duplicates are managed.
• Developers receive actionable context.
• The programme measures fix rate, not alert volume.

20. POLPROG tools and resources

Automated enterprise scanners can be supplemented with public-surface checks:

• Website Health Check
• Security Headers Inspector
• DNS & SSL Inspector
• FlowTrace
• POLPROG Knowledge Base