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)."It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"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."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"The port scanner is a little too slow."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"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 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while Seeker is ranked 25th 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, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube 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.