We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand 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 important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
"The user interface is good."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"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."
"There are many false positives identified by the solution."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"I would like the solution to add AI support."
"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."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 9th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 57 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube and Polaris Software Integrity Platform.
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.
