Why AppSec Teams Replace SAST with Kodem
Checkmarx scans your source code for potential vulnerabilities. Kodem watches what your application actually executes through eBPF, validates which findings are exploitable through real call graphs, and blocks attacks in real time with Attack-Driven Remediation. The intelligent application security platform that replaces static-only SAST with runtime evidence.
Trusted by
How Kodem Compares to Checkmarx
Checkmarx is a traditional static application security testing vendor. Its SAST engine builds data-flow graphs from source code, looking for tainted variables, insecure functions, and injection patterns. Kodem is an AI-native application security platform that observes what your application actually executes via eBPF, validates exploitability through real call graphs, and generates runtime patches that block exploits before the underlying code is fixed. Checkmarx finds candidate vulnerabilities. Kodem confirms which ones can be exploited.
Best for
AppSec teams modernizing beyond static SAST
Regulated enterprises with deep SAST compliance needs
Analysis foundation
Hybrid static + runtime (eBPF)
Static source code analysis only
Binary / third-party coverage
Compiled deps and containers
Requires source; closed-source libraries are blind spots
False positive control
99.5% alert reduction via runtime validation
Often flags dead code; heuristic reachability
Runtime defense
ADR (eBPF policies block exploits)
None
Analysis time
Continuous eBPF; sub-minute feedback
Repository scans; minutes to hours
Feature comparison: Kodem vs Checkmarx
Aspect
Analysis foundation
Hybrid static plus runtime analysis via eBPF; AI-driven call graph inference and taint tracking
Static code analysis of source repositories
Binary and third-party coverage
Analyses compiled dependencies and container images; builds call graphs across library boundaries
Limited: requires source code; cannot inspect closed-source libraries or system packages
Runtime contextualization
Continuously observes calls, network I/O, and file operations; correlates vulnerabilities with real execution
None; results are context-free; developers must determine reachability manually
False positive mitigation
Validates exploits by verifying control and data flows at runtime; surfaces only exploitable issues
Often flags dead code; depends on heuristics for reachability; high triage overhead
Zero-day detection
AI models detect patterns not yet in CVE databases; monitors abnormal behaviours
Dependent on signature updates; cannot detect novel attack patterns
ADR and patch generation
Synthesizes eBPF-based policies that intercept unsafe calls; patches deploy instantly
No runtime patching capability; remediation requires code changes and retesting
Infrastructure impact
Agentless; no code instrumentation; supports microservices, containers, and serverless
No runtime blocking; remediation depends entirely on developers updating code
Why AppSec teams switch from Checkmarx to Kodem
99.5% fewer alerts that don't matter
74% faster Mean Time to Remediation
Runtime defense, not just detection
Coverage Checkmarx cannot reach
When Checkmarx might be the better fit
Checkmarx is the stronger choice in three scenarios. First, if your security program operates inside a regulated industry (defense, financial services, healthcare) with specific compliance frameworks that name Checkmarx as an approved or required tool, or with auditor relationships built around the established Checkmarx evidence model, the tool is doing meaningful compliance work that consolidating away from would create regulatory friction.
Second, if your application portfolio is overwhelmingly source-available monolithic code (no compiled third-party binaries, no vendored libraries, no significant runtime dynamism), the static-only constraint that limits Checkmarx in microservices contexts matters less in your environment.
Third, if your team has multi-year Checkmarx investment in custom queries and tuned rule sets that encode your organization-specific security policy, the switching cost is genuinely high. For AppSec teams modernizing past static-only SAST, defending live production, or proving exploitability before fixing, Kodem is the better fit.
Other Checkmarx alternatives to consider
If Checkmarx is not the right fit and Kodem is not either, five other tools in the application security category earn consideration depending on the shape of your program.
Best for
Developer-led programs prioritizing ecosystem breadth and IDE workflow
Detection model
SCA against CVE DB plus Snyk Code SAST
vs Checkmarx
Broader category coverage, lighter SAST depth, better developer UX
Best for
Regulated enterprises evaluating an alternate established SAST vendor
Detection model
Binary-based static analysis plus DAST
vs Checkmarx
Comparable SAST depth, binary-first model, similar enterprise positioning
Best for
Security engineering teams writing custom detection rules
Detection model
Code-pattern matching plus reachability
vs Checkmarx
Faster scans, rules-extensible, narrower out-of-box rule coverage
Best for
Dependency-heavy programs prioritizing SCA reachability over SAST
Detection model
Static call graph analysis on dependencies
vs Checkmarx
SCA-leaning rather than SAST-leaning; complementary rather than substitutive
Best for
GitHub-native organizations wanting bundled security
Detection model
CodeQL queries plus dependency advisories
vs Checkmarx
Lighter enterprise overhead, tighter GitHub integration, less rule depth
AppSec teams running on Kodem
"We uncovered every attack scenario our past SAST and SCA tools missed and eliminated a seven-figure risk before it hit production."
Rocket Lawyer, AppSec team lead
"Wiz made infra security feel easy. Kodem is doing the same for AppSec. It tells us what attackers can actually reach."
Nir Rothenberg, CISO, Rapyd
"Kai saved our engineers time, 10x'd our team, and gave us visibility we never had."
Apollo.io, Engineering
"No other tool showed us how low-severity vulns could be chained into a breach. Kodem did."
Riskified, Security team
Kodem in numbers
99.5%
reduction in alerts that don't matter
74%
improvement in Mean Time to Remediation
83%
fewer net-new vulns per release
10x
effective team multiplier (Apollo.io)
Frequently Asked Questions
The best Checkmarx alternative depends on what you need beyond static SAST. For AppSec teams that want exploitability validated at runtime rather than predicted from source code, Kodem replaces traditional SAST with eBPF-based runtime call graphs and Attack-Driven Remediation. For developer-led shift-left programs that prioritize ecosystem breadth and IDE workflow, Snyk is a closer like-for-like swap. For comparable enterprise SAST depth with a different vendor relationship, Veracode is the established option. For reachability-focused SCA, Endor Labs is the specialist. For GitHub-native programs, GitHub Advanced Security is the bundled option.
Checkmarx scans your source code for tainted variables, insecure functions, and injection patterns, then produces a list of candidate vulnerabilities. Kodem deploys eBPF sensors that observe what your application actually executes, validates which findings are reachable through real call graphs, and generates eBPF policies that block exploits before code is patched. The practical difference: Checkmarx produces a triage backlog where developers manually determine reachability; Kodem produces a validated action list with exploitability already confirmed. Kodem reports a 99.5 percent reduction in alerts that did not need a fix.
Both Kodem and Checkmarx price as enterprise contracts. The relevant comparison is not list price but cost per remediated exploit. Checkmarx scales on lines-of-code analyzed and the number of applications under management. Kodem's coverage-based model scales with the application surface being protected. AppSec teams running mature programs typically find Kodem's runtime validation eliminates enough triage labour to offset platform cost within the first quarter, with consolidation savings on top.
Yes, for AppSec programs where runtime validation and runtime defense are the priority. Kodem covers everything Checkmarx covers (SAST, SCA, container scanning, IaC) and adds runtime call graph analysis, Attack-Driven Remediation, zero-day pattern detection, and Kai, the AI security engineer. For organizations with compliance frameworks that explicitly require Checkmarx by name, or with multi-year investment in custom Checkmarx queries, some teams run both during a transition cycle of one or two quarters before consolidating fully.
Yes. Kodem includes a full SAST engine that detects injection vulnerabilities, logic flaws, taint paths, and misconfigurations across Java, .NET, Go, Rust, Node.js, Python, Ruby, C, and C++. The difference from Checkmarx is the augmentation: every SAST finding from Kodem is cross-checked against the runtime call graph before alerting. Where Checkmarx flags a tainted path and asks developers to confirm reachability manually, Kodem confirms reachability before the finding is surfaced, eliminating the largest source of triage overhead in traditional SAST workflows.
Checkmarx, Veracode, and Fortify are the three legacy enterprise SAST vendors that historically defined the category. Checkmarx (now Checkmarx One) operates on source code repositories. Veracode runs binary-based static analysis. Fortify (now part of OpenText) blends source and binary analysis. All three share the static-only constraint: none of them observes runtime execution or validates whether a flagged vulnerability is reachable in a live deployment. The modern alternative to all three is a hybrid platform like Kodem that performs static analysis as one input among many, then validates findings against runtime call graphs before alerting.
All three are application security platforms but the categories diverge on what they analyse. Checkmarx is enterprise SAST: source code static analysis with established compliance positioning. Snyk is developer-first SCA plus shift-left scanning across containers and IaC. Kodem deploys eBPF sensors to observe what actually executes, then layers SAST, SCA, container, and runtime defense (ADR) on the runtime call graph. Checkmarx finds candidate vulnerabilities in code. Snyk finds known CVEs in dependencies. Kodem finds, validates, and blocks exploits at runtime.