Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Seeker
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
25th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.4%, down from 6.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Seeker is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

YK
May 4, 2023
Stable dynamic testing solution with unreliable manual processes
Since it is a community-based tool, I am unsure if OWASP Zap is quite up to date with recent weaknesses currently exploitable in work. So, sometimes we have to add to do it manually. How to differentiate between the false positive and the true findings need improvement. In general, the shortcomings in the accuracy of the findings need to be improved. The automation process can help us perform website attacks using the latest exploit techniques and procedures, often used in reverse scenarios. Although other commercial solutions have this feature, I hope OWASP Zap can catch up and offer similar capabilities.
San K - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 7, 2022
More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities
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. The purposes for which applications are designed may differ in practice in the industry, and because of this, there will always be tools that sometimes report false positives. Thus, there should be some means with which I can customize the way that Seeker learns about our applications, possibly by using some kind of AI / ML capability within the tool that will automatically reduce the number of false positives that we get as we use the tool over time. Obviously, when we first start using the scanning tool there will be false positives, but as it keeps going and as I keep using the tool, there should be a period of time where either the application can learn how to ignore false positives, or I can customize it do so. Adding this type of functionality would definitely prevent future issues when it comes to reporting false positives, and this is a key area that we have already asked the vendor to improve on, in general. On a different note, there is one feature that isn't completely available right now where you can integrate Seeker with an open-source vulnerability scanner or composition analysis tool such as Black Duck. I would very much like this capability to be available to us out-of-the-box, so that we can easily integrate with tools like Black Duck in such a way that any open source components that are used in the front-end are easily identified. I think this would be a huge plus for Seeker. Another feature within Seeker which could benefit from improvement is active verification, which lets you actively verify a vulnerability. This feature currently doesn't work in certain applications, particularly in scenarios where you have requested tokens. When we bought the tool, we didn't realize this and we were not told about it by the vendor, so initially it was a big challenge for us to overcome it and properly begin our deployment.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"The most valuable feature is scanning the URL to drill down all the different sites."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"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 ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."
"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."
 

Cons

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is open-source."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"The solution’s pricing is high."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."
"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about OWASP Zap?
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, i...
What do you like most about Seeker?
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 AppSca...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Seeker?
The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year.
What needs improvement with Seeker?
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. Ho...
 

Comparisons

 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: June 2024.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.