We performed a comparison between Checkmarx 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)."The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile."
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."
"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."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"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."
Checkmarx is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 67 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 1 review. Checkmarx is rated 7.6, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional.
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.