We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One 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)."The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"It has all the features we need."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"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."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"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 One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One 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 One 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, SonarQube and HCL AppScan.
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.