We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Seeker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."We leverage it as a quality check against code."
"We are now deploying less defects to production."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"It's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan"
"The solution is cheap."
"Usually when we deploy the application, there is a process for ethical hacking. The main benefit is that, the ethical hacking is almost clean, every time. So it's less cost, less effort, less time to production."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"The HCL AppScan turnaround time for Burp Suite or any new feature request is pretty good, and that is why we are sticking with the HCL."
"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications."
"It has crashed at times."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"The solution's scalability can be a matter of concern because one license runs on one machine only."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."
HCL AppScan is ranked 11th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 41 reviews while Seeker is ranked 25th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
