We performed a comparison between Coverity 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)."I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"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."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"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."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and GitLab, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and Checkmarx One.
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.