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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"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."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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 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.
