We performed a comparison between Kiuwan 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)."Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I like that I can scan the code without sending it to the Kiuwan cloud. I can do it locally on my device. When the local analyzer finishes, the results display on the dashboard in the cloud. It's essential for security purposes to be able to scan my code locally."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"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."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"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."
Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 23 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 1 review. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and Snyk, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and SonarQube.
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.