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 Application Security Testing (AST)."We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"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."
"Coverity is not stable."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"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 Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Application Security Testing (AST) 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 Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.