We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One 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)."The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"We use the solution for dynamic application testing."
"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 resolutions should also be provided. For example, if the user faces any problem regarding an installation due to the internal security policies of their company, there should be a resolution offered."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"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."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube and HCL AppScan.
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.