We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan 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)."You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"IBM AppScan has made our work easy, as we can do four to five scans of websites at a time, which saves time when it comes to vulnerability."
"The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."
"It comes with all of the templates that we need. For example, we are a company that is regulated by PCI. In order to be PCI compliant, we have a lot of checks and procedures to which we have to comply."
"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."
"IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"Improvement can be done as per customer requirements."
"We would like to see a check in the specific vulnerabilities in mobile applications or rooted devices, such as jailbreaking devices."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"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."
HCL AppScan is ranked 12th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 41 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, SonarQube and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional.
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.
