No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Menlo Protect vs Seeker Interactive comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Menlo Protect
Ranking in Internet Security
14th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (55th), Enterprise Browsers (5th), Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) (4th)
Seeker Interactive
Ranking in Internet Security
15th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Mobile Threat Defense (14th), API Security (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Internet Security category, the mindshare of Menlo Protect is 3.4%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Seeker Interactive is 1.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Internet Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Menlo Protect3.4%
Seeker Interactive1.1%
Other95.5%
Internet Security
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1991553 - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Specialist at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Decreased our security alerts without impacting employees' work
I can't say that there is one specific feature that is most valuable. It's the overall platform that is well-suited to our needs. It's something that is different from a lot of other products or platforms in the marketplace. It provides a single console for security policy and management. That is somewhat important because we used to have other products where you would have to log in to individual appliances, devices, or clusters. Having one spot to log in to or one area to go to for doing different tasks and viewing data sources, just makes it easier from a user perspective. Also, the fact that it's invisible to our end-users and doesn't affect their work is very important. Most companies don't want to have added friction or impact on their users. In addition, the combination of user-friendliness for admins, and security for the organization, works well. As a cloud-hosted solution, it provides ease of use.
San K - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Group Leader at Infosys
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

"Menlo Security RBI's best feature is its threat isolation engine."
"Menlo Security RBI has a very good record on stability."
"In addition, the combination of user-friendliness for admins, and security for the organization, works well."
"I can't say that there is one specific feature that is most valuable. It's the overall platform that is well-suited to our needs. It's something that is different from a lot of other products or platforms in the marketplace."
"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."
"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., and furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
 

Cons

"There are several features, such as supporting web technologies, that the company is working on implementing in the platform."
"Menlo Security RBI can be very costly."
"There are several features, such as supporting web technologies, that the company is working on implementing in the platform. There are a lot of backend web technologies in use on various websites, for example, two-way audio/video and WebGL, for which support may not be fully implemented in the product."
"Menlo Security RBI could be more cloud-friendly, and its mobility could be improved."
"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."
"All in all, the enterprise server installation is very easy and straightforward, but with the agent installation you might face problems up to 50% of the time for a variety of reasons, depending on what type of application is involved, the type of deployment used, and so on."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Menlo Security RBI can be very costly."
"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 Internet Security solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Government
16%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Menlo Security Email Security, Menlo Security Remote Browser Isolation
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Macy's, HSBC, Bank of Hawaii
El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Zscaler, iboss and others in Internet Security. Updated: February 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.