We performed a comparison between Coverity 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)."Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"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."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"The solution could use more rules."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"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."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Seeker is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Fortify Application Defender, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform, SonarQube and Checkmarx One.
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.