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)."The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"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 is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"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."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The setup takes very long."
"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 33 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 Fortify Application Defender, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform, SonarQube 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.