We performed a comparison between Seeker and SonarQube 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)."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."
"The solution can verify vulnerabilities, code smells, and hotspots. It makes the software more secure and it helps make a junior or novice developer sharper."
"I like that it's easy to navigate not just in terms of code findings but you can actually see them in the context of your source code because it gives you a copy of your code with the items that it found and highlights them. You can see it directly in your code, so you can easily go back and make the corrections in the code. It basically finds the problems for you and tells you where they are."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard, the ability to drill down to the code, user-friendly, and the technical debt estimation."
"The most valuable function is its usability."
"There's plenty of documentation available to users."
"This solution is simple to use and can be quickly deployed."
"We advise all of our developers to have this solution in place."
"SonarQube: Recording of issues over a period of time, with an indication of the addition in the new issues or the reduction of existing issues (which were fixed)."
"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."
"I would like to see SonarQube implement a good amount of improvements to the product's security features. Another aspect of SonarQube that could be improved is the search functionality."
"After scanning our code and generating a report, it would be helpful if SonarQube could also generate a solution to fix vulnerabilities in the report."
"We could use some team support, but since we are using the community version, it's not available."
"It would be better if SonarQube provided a good UI for external configuration."
"One thing to improve would be the integration. There is a steep learning curve to get it integrated."
"Currently requires multiple tools, lacking one overall tool."
"Ease of use/interface."
"The documentation is not clear and it needs to be updated."
Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 111 reviews. Seeker is rated 7.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and Checkmarx One, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk.
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.
