We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap 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)."They offer free access to some other tools."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The API is exceptional."
"The solution is scalable."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"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."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"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."
OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Veracode, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess and Polaris Software Integrity Platform.
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.
