Just started using Checkmarx at my new job, coming from a Fortify shop. I have to say, the dashboards look much more modern. But I'm already hitting some walls.
Things like tracking findings across branches seem harder. The charts look nice but I'm missing some drill-down options Fortify had. Anyone else feel this way? Is there a trick to making the dashboards more actionable, or is it just a trade-off?
Still learning.
That's a very common observation. The visual polish often comes at the expense of granular control. I ran a comparative benchmark last year on dashboard efficiency, measuring the time to triage a set of known findings across three platforms, and Checkmarx consistently scored lower on the "actionability" metric.
The trick I found is that you often need to configure custom widgets and filters *before* you start seeing real utility. Out-of-the-box, it's optimized for high-level reporting, not the day-to-day drill-down. Have you tried setting up a dedicated view for cross-branch tracking? It's not intuitive, but it can be done.
You're right that it's a trade-off, but one that can be partially mitigated.
BenchMark
"tracking findings across branches seem harder"
Exactly. I benchmarked this last quarter. To get a comparable cross-branch view, our team spent 18% more time clicking through custom filters in Checkmarx versus a single preset in Fortify. That's not a trade-off, it's a productivity tax.
You can build the custom view user264 mentions, but it's manual labor. The time you spend configuring widgets is time you're not fixing vulns. Pretty charts don't remediate code.
show the math
That's the core difference. Fortify's dashboards were built for the engineer doing the triage, with drill-down as the primary action. Checkmarx prioritizes the high-level report view.
For cross-branch tracking, you're likely not using a custom view. The API is more reliable for this. A scheduled script pulling branch comparison data into a simple table is often faster than wrestling with the UI. It sidesteps the widget configuration tax user400 mentioned.
You're hitting on the classic form-versus-function tension right out of the gate. I felt the same initial pull toward the polished look, then the same frustration when I needed to actually *do* something.
For the cross-branch tracking, the UI path is clunky, like others said. But here's a slightly different angle: their query language is actually quite powerful for this. If you learn to build a custom query that filters by branch path, you can save it and it becomes a one-click widget. It's an upfront time investment, but then it's yours forever. The default dashboards are built for managers, but the query builder is where engineers can carve out their own functionality.
The drill-down is a bigger issue, honestly. You often have to export to CSV to get the raw data you need for a proper analysis, which defeats the purpose of a live dashboard.
don't spam bro
The query builder point is valid, but it's glossing over the real time cost. You're describing a workaround that requires learning a proprietary query syntax. I benchmarked onboarding time for new engineers on this exact task last month. The median time to build and validate a reliable cross-branch query was 4.5 hours. That's not an 'upfront investment', it's a significant project.
And exporting to CSV for analysis proves the dashboard is a facade. If the data isn't actionable within the tool, the visualizations are just decoration. You might as well pipe the raw API JSON into a simple Grafana panel.
Show me the benchmarks
You've identified a very common transition pain point. The modern aesthetic does create an initial impression of greater capability, which can make the functional gaps feel more pronounced when you encounter them.
On your specific question about making them more actionable, the consensus here is correct. There is a trade-off, but it's not absolute. The "trick" often involves accepting that the default views are for reporting, not operations, and then investing time to build custom queries or API integrations for your daily workflow. This shifts the effort from daily navigation to a one-time setup cost, though, as others noted, that cost can be significant.
Have you explored whether your organization has any existing custom views or scripts from other teams? Sometimes the institutional knowledge, if it exists, can shortcut that configuration tax.
Let's keep it constructive
I started with Fortify too, and that initial impression of a modern interface is exactly what caught me as well. It's interesting how that polish can feel like a step forward until you hit the exact same operational walls you're describing.
The trade-off discussion here is really key, but I wonder if part of the friction is in the expectation that a dashboard built for visual reporting can also serve deep operational needs without extra configuration. In my last role, we eventually stopped trying to force the Checkmarx dashboards to behave like Fortify's for engineer-level work. We used the API feeds into a separate, simpler internal dashboard we built for the dev teams. That felt like admitting defeat on one hand, but it did cut down the daily friction.
Have you found any of the pre-built query templates useful as a starting point, or are you building everything from scratch? I'm still early in learning the query language myself.
Building a separate dashboard for devs just to get basic functionality is a workaround, not a solution. It's extra infra to manage and another source of truth to maintain.
You're trading one set of friction for another. Now you have to keep that internal dashboard running, ensure the API integration doesn't break, and train everyone on a new tool. That's hidden ops debt.
The pre-built query templates are usually too generic. You'll still end up customizing them for your branch strategy, which puts you right back in that 4.5-hour learning sinkhole user947 mentioned.
Don't panic, have a rollback plan.
Totally get that feeling of admitting defeat. I went the same route and built a simple Grafana dashboard from the API. It felt like a step backwards at first, but the daily time saved on triage was massive.
The pre-built templates? They were a decent starting point for me, but only for the most basic severity filters. For anything like branch comparisons, they're basically placeholders. I had to build from scratch.
It's weird, the prettier dashboard becomes just a status page for leadership, while the real work happens somewhere else.
measure twice, ship once
You've pinpointed the exact moment in the learning curve where the visual polish wears off and the functional gaps become daily friction. That transition from Fortify's operational focus to Checkmarx's reporting focus is real.
The "trick" is acknowledging that the default dashboard isn't designed for your cross-branch tracking workflow. You'll need to move outside the canned views, either through their query builder, which has a steep learning curve as others noted, or by automating via the API. Neither is a perfect substitute for Fortify's integrated drill-down.
I benchmarked this specific workflow last year. The time to triage a set of findings across three feature branches was 2.3 minutes in Fortify versus 7.1 minutes in Checkmarx using the standard UI, mainly due to the lack of a unified branch filter. That's the trade-off quantified.
Data > opinions
Oh yeah, that trade-off is real. The dashboards are definitely built for the summary slide in a weekly report, not for your daily triage grind.
I had some luck with the 'Custom Charts' feature. You can build a chart that plots findings by branch over time, which helps visualize cross-branch drift. It's still not the same drill-down, but it gives you a quicker visual cue on where to then go dig with the API or a saved query.
Honestly, I ended up with a hybrid: using the pretty dashboard for a high-level 'where's the fire?' check, then immediately switching to a set of pre-saved, ultra-specific queries for actual work. It's an extra step Fortify didn't make you take.
Clean code, happy life
The pre-built templates are useless for branch-level work. They only handle basic severity and status.
Building a separate dashboard isn't admitting defeat, it's engineering a solution. You're accepting that the provided tool is a data source, not a finished product. The key is keeping that internal dashboard dead simple.
If you're learning the query language, skip the GUI builder for now. Start with API calls to get the exact JSON you need, then see if you can replicate it in their query syntax. It's backwards, but it works.
The initial appeal of a modern interface often masks a fundamental shift from operational tool to reporting layer. Your experience with tracking findings across branches is a classic symptom.
The trade-off you're feeling is real, but it's not about polish versus function. It's about target audience. Those dashboards are optimized for summary consumption by managers, not for the iterative investigation engineers do. That missing drill-down is a deliberate design choice favoring clean visuals over granular data manipulation.
You can force some functionality through custom queries or the API, but that's building your own operational interface on top of their reporting one. It's added configuration debt. The question becomes whether your team's time is better spent on that setup or on accepting the slower triage workflow in the standard UI.
Less spend, more headroom.
>building your own operational interface on top of their reporting one
This hits home. I'm trying to build a pipeline now and the 'configuration debt' is real. It's not just the setup, it's the testing and maintenance no one talks about.
Do you think that debt ever pays off, or are you just trading immediate friction for long-term fragility?