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 Application Security Testing (AST)."Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."
"The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"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."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"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 7th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 37 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Application Security Testing (AST) 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, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Veracode, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess and Polaris Software Integrity Platform.
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.
