apisec compared to Checkmarx

apisec vs Checkmarx: the short answer

Checkmarx is an application security testing platform. Checkmarx One finds possible flaws in source code, open source packages, containers, infrastructure as code and APIs, then uses AI agents to triage, prioritize and propose fixes.

apisec is an Application Exploit Validation platform. It discovers every application from SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure, builds a graph of how each one operates, and generates exploits that attempt to compromise the live application. It delivers a SAST report, an SCA report and, most important, actionable exploits that go to the top of the fix queue. It tests with or without source code, including third-party and cloud framework code that SAST and SCA can't see.

The core difference: Checkmarx tells you where flaws might be, and its AI proposes which ones matter. apisec tells you which ones an attacker can use, with replayable evidence, and confirms when each one is fixed. apisec is built as the successor to code-only testing, for teams whose problem is no longer finding issues but knowing which ones are real.

apisec vs Checkmarx at a glance

• Category. Checkmarx: agentic application security testing. apisec: Application Exploit Validation.
• Main products. Checkmarx: Checkmarx One, including Fusion SAST, SCA, DAST, API Security, IaC Security, Container Security, Secrets Detection, Malicious Packages, Repository Health, AI Inventory, ASPM and the Assist agents. apisec: apisec Surface, apisec App Model and apisec Exploit Testing.
• What it examines. Checkmarx: source code, open source packages, containers, IaC and repositories, plus running web apps and APIs (DAST). apisec: an inventory from SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure, then the running application, with or without source code.
• Output. Checkmarx: findings, triaged and prioritized by AI agents, with proposed fixes. apisec: a SAST report, an SCA report, and actionable exploits (confirmed, cleared or blocked, with replayable evidence) at the top of the fix queue.
• How exploitable is decided. Checkmarx: Triage Assist reasons about reachability and exploitability from code, and a person reviews anything marked "Proposed Not Exploitable." apisec: the attack runs against the live application and succeeds or fails.
• How a fix is confirmed. Checkmarx: Remediation Assist proposes a fix pull request, a person reviews it, and the next analysis checks it. apisec: the same attack reruns and flips from confirmed to cleared.
• Business logic and authorization. Checkmarx: not the focus of code analysis. apisec: tested directly, including object-level access, tenant isolation, and roles and permissions.
• Best for. Checkmarx: deep source code analysis and developer workflow coverage across a large portfolio. apisec: knowing what an attacker can actually use, and proving it's closed.

What Checkmarx does well

Checkmarx is one of the best-known names in static analysis, and it now describes itself as the leader in agentic application security. Its Checkmarx One platform, per checkmarx.com, covers:

• Fusion SAST for deep, source-to-sink analysis of first-party code
• SCA, Malicious Package Protection and Repository Health for open source and software supply chain risk
• API Security, IaC Security, Container Security and Secrets Detection
• DAST for running web applications and APIs
• AI Inventory and an LLM Scanner for the AI components in your code
• ASPM to correlate findings into one risk view
• Checkmarx One Assist agents, including Developer Assist in the IDE and Triage & Remediation Assist, which assess findings and propose fixes
• Codebashing secure coding training

Checkmarx's strengths are depth of source code analysis, broad language coverage, and reach into developer workflows across a large application portfolio.

The question Checkmarx leaves open: what can an attacker actually use?

Checkmarx's own research makes the case that more detection hasn't solved the problem. Its 2026 Future of Application Security report, a survey of 2,350 CISOs, AppSec managers and developers in 14 countries, found:

• 75% of organizations knowingly deploy vulnerable code at some point
• 93% reported a recent breach tied to their own applications
• 95% of CISOs feel pressure to suppress or delay compliance-related security issues
• Organizations with 81 to 100% AI-generated code are nearly three times more likely to ship known vulnerabilities (47% vs 14%)

Checkmarx's chief product officer names the first priority as collapsing raw findings into actionable signal. We agree. The question is how.

Checkmarx's answer is AI agents. Triage Assist checks whether a SAST or SCA finding is reachable, exploitable and unmitigated, and marks the ones it doubts "Proposed Not Exploitable." Checkmarx is candid that this is not a final false-positive determination: a person still reviews it. Remediation Assist then proposes a fix for a person to approve.

That makes triage faster. It doesn't change what's in the queue: findings from code, each one a judgment someone still has to confirm.

Three gaps remain:

1. AI triage isn't proof. A model reasoning about a code path can be wrong in either direction. Checkmarx's CEO puts it well: "Just like the student cannot grade their own exam, AI alone cannot secure code." Proof comes from running the attack, not from reading the code again.
2. Fixing unproven findings spends engineering time on noise. An AI-generated pull request for a flaw no attacker could reach is still a change to review, test and ship.
3. Code isn't the application. Broken object-level authorization, tenant isolation failures and permission gaps live where code meets identity and configuration at runtime. That's where the most damaging weaknesses sit.

How apisec works

apisec is Application Exploit Validation: see every way in, prove what an attacker can use, confirm the fix. It has three parts.

apisec Surface: discover every application. Surface builds the application inventory from the systems that already know about your applications: SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure. The result is a global view of every enterprise application, what each one is made of, its libraries with known vulnerabilities and whether the vulnerable code is reachable, including shadow and undocumented applications.

apisec App Model: a graph of how each application operates. The App Model is a graph representation of how the application actually works: its routes, identities, authentication, authorization, data flows, dependencies, agents and MCP servers, and how they connect. Attackers reason about an application as a graph of paths to data. The App Model gives defenders the same view.

apisec Exploit Testing: compromise the application before an attacker does. Exploit Testing uses the graph to generate an inventory of application security exploits, then runs them against the live application to try to compromise it across six layers: business logic, data access, roles and permissions, the application container, infrastructure and security controls. Each exploit is recorded as confirmed, cleared, or blocked on a missing prerequisite, with replayable evidence. After a fix ships, the same exploit reruns and flips from confirmed to cleared.

What apisec delivers

• A SAST report on first-party code
• An SCA report on open source and third-party dependencies
• Most important: actionable exploits. Each one is proven against the running application, comes with evidence and the data it exposed, and goes to the top of the fix queue ahead of everything else.

Models help generate exploits and explanations. A deterministic harness decides what's real, so the same application gives the same answer every run.

apisec tests with or without source code

Most of what runs in a modern application isn't code your team wrote, and much of it is code you never see. Cloud frameworks, managed services, API gateways and platforms, vendor SDKs and compiled third-party components all run inside your application, and you never receive their source.

SAST and SCA depend on having the code or the manifest:

• SAST analyzes the code you supply. Code you never receive, such as the cloud framework or managed service your application runs on, is outside its view.
• SCA matches declared open source packages to published CVEs. It can't show how a library behaves inside your application, can't see flaws nobody has published yet, and can't see third-party code that isn't in a manifest.

apisec doesn't need the source. Exploit Testing works against the running application, so it tests the whole stack the way an attacker meets it: your code, open source libraries, cloud frameworks and third-party components together. If a dependency you can't see opens a path to your data, apisec proves it. When source code is available, apisec uses it to enrich the App Model and to produce the SAST and SCA reports. When it isn't, testing still runs.

apisec vs Checkmarx, capability by capability

Application discovery

Checkmarx: Analyzes the repositories and applications you connect, and builds an AI Inventory of the AI components in that code.

apisec: Surface builds the application inventory from SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure, including internal, shadow and undocumented applications and the AI and MCP systems inside them.

Open source and dependency risk

Checkmarx: SCA identifies vulnerable packages, and Malicious Package Protection flags risky ones.

apisec: Delivers an SCA report covering each application's libraries with known vulnerabilities and whether the vulnerable code is reachable. Exploit Testing then proves whether the weakness can be exploited through the application.

Third-party and cloud framework code

Checkmarx: SAST and SCA cover the code and declared packages you supply. Code that runs in cloud frameworks and managed services, which you never receive, is outside their view.

apisec: Tests the running application with or without source code, so third-party and cloud framework code is tested the way an attacker meets it, alongside your own.

Code flaws

Checkmarx: Fusion SAST finds possible flaws in source code with source-to-sink data flow analysis.

apisec: Delivers a SAST report on first-party code, then tests whether each code-level risk can be exploited in the running application. Proven exploits go to the top of the fix queue; what can't be exploited is cleared with evidence.

Runtime testing

Checkmarx: DAST tests running web applications and APIs from the outside, and results join the ASPM risk view.

apisec: Every test runs against the live application, generated from the App Model's graph of that specific application rather than a generic signature set.

Business logic and authorization

Checkmarx: Not a stated focus of its automated testing.

apisec: Tests object-level authorization, tenant isolation and the full roles-and-permissions matrix with real identities.

False positives and triage

Checkmarx: Triage Assist reasons about reachability and exploitability and proposes which findings to deprioritize; a person makes the final call.

apisec: Removes false positives at the source. Only exploits that succeed are confirmed, ranked by the data they exposed.

Fix verification

Checkmarx: Remediation Assist proposes a fix pull request for review; the next analysis shows whether the flaw pattern is gone.

apisec: The same attack reruns after the fix. Confirmed flips to cleared, giving a measurable record of the backlog closing.

AI applications and MCP

Checkmarx: AI Inventory and the LLM Scanner identify AI components and model risks in code.

apisec: Surface Code AI maps MCP servers, agents, LLM providers and call sites, and the App Model includes them so they're tested as part of the application.

What this means for your program

If your Checkmarx backlog keeps growing, the answer isn't more detection or a faster triage agent. It's proof. Five steps to move from findings to exploits:

1. Count what's proven. Take your last 100 Checkmarx findings, including the ones marked "Proposed Not Exploitable." How many has anyone shown an attacker can use in the running application? That gap is what your team is paying to triage.
2. Map what you actually run. Use apisec Surface to inventory every application, including the ones never connected to a scanner.
3. Validate your highest-risk applications first. Point apisec Exploit Testing at the applications with the most sensitive data and the longest queues.
4. Send developers only confirmed exploits. Each comes with evidence and the data it exposed. Everything that can't be exploited is cleared.
5. Report exploits cleared, not findings closed. Rerun after every fix. The board sees how much of the footprint an attacker could use, and how fast that number is falling.

apisec vs Checkmarx: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between apisec and Checkmarx?

Checkmarx finds possible flaws in source code, open source packages, containers and APIs, then uses AI agents to triage them and propose fixes. apisec proves which weaknesses an attacker can actually exploit by running attacks against the live application, records each as confirmed, cleared or blocked with replayable evidence, and reruns the attack to confirm every fix.

Is apisec an alternative to Checkmarx?

Yes. apisec is built as the successor to code-only testing. It delivers a SAST report and an SCA report and, more importantly, actionable exploits proven against the running application that go straight to the top of the fix queue. Teams use it to replace a growing findings backlog with a short list of confirmed exploits.

Checkmarx already uses AI to triage findings. How is apisec different?

Checkmarx Triage Assist reasons about whether a finding is reachable and exploitable, then proposes a verdict a person still has to review. apisec runs the attack against the running application. A finding that can't be exploited is cleared with evidence; one that can is confirmed with a record of the attack and the data it exposed.

Can apisec find vulnerabilities Checkmarx misses?

Yes, in the areas code analysis can't see. apisec tests business logic, object-level authorization, tenant isolation and the full roles-and-permissions matrix against the running application with real identities. These weaknesses exist where code meets identity and configuration at runtime, so they rarely show up in static analysis.

Does apisec need access to source code?

No. apisec tests the running application with or without source code. That matters for third-party code you never see, such as cloud frameworks, managed services and vendor components, and for how open source libraries behave inside your application. SAST needs the code and SCA matches declared packages to known CVEs; apisec tests what actually runs.

See what an attacker can use in your application

Pick the application where your Checkmarx queue is longest and test it free, with no credit card. apisec shows which risks an attacker can actually exploit, which ones clear, and the evidence for each.

Sign up free to see what an attacker could reach in one of your own applications.