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)."You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI."
"I like the recording feature."
"Technical support is helpful."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected."
"The static scans are good, and the SaaS as well."
"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."
"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."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."
"The tool should improve its output. Scanning is not a challenge anymore since there are many such tools available in the market. The product needs to focus on how its output is being used by end users. It should be also more user-friendly. One of the major challenges is in the tool's integration with applications that need to be scanned. Sometimes, the scanning is not proper."
"It has crashed at times."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"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 12th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 40 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, 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, OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and OWASP Zap.
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.