Checkmarx One vs Seeker Interactive comparison

Checkmarx and Black Duck are both solutions in the API Security category. Checkmarx is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.1, while Black Duck is ranked #18. Checkmarx holds a 5.8% mindshare in APIS, compared to Black Duck’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

20,225 Views
607 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Seeker Interactive

Read 1 Seeker Interactive review

1,051 Views
252 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Seeker Interactive

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

Checkmarx One and Seeker Interactive are application security testing competitors. Checkmarx One often leads in comprehensive feature offerings, while Seeker Interactive stands out for user engagement and risk assessment capabilities.

Features: Checkmarx One provides robust security scanning, integrating well with development tools, and offers deep code analysis for vulnerabilities. Seeker Interactive gives real-time insights into application behavior, detecting runtime vulnerabilities, and excels in dynamic analysis essential for dynamic environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One offers straightforward deployment and strong support options, simplifying integration with existing CI/CD pipelines. Seeker Interactive requires a more involved setup but provides in-depth customer service, aiding in complex deployments.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One involves significant initial setup costs, offering valuable ROI through scalability and reduced long-term vulnerability management expenses. Seeker Interactive has a moderate setup cost, providing ROI from precise vulnerability detection and risk management.

To learn more, read our detailed API Security Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

API Security

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 890,088 peers since 2012

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

Checkmarx One

Ranking in API Security

4th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (1st)

Seeker Interactive

Ranking in API Security

18th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Internet Security (15th), Mobile Threat Defense (14th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 5.8%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Seeker Interactive is 2.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Security Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	5.8%
Seeker Interactive	2.5%
Other	91.7%

API Security

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution

Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance

Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.

Read full review

San K

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has made our organization more efficient with our whole code scan/deployment process for our software applications."

"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."

"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use, and we do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."

"We are using Checkmarx for analyzing threats."

"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."

"It's been a very positive experience overall."

"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things, and it also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."

"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."

More Checkmarx One pros

"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."

"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."

Cons

"Dynamic testing. If it had that feature I would have liked to see more consideration of framework validations that we don't have to duplicate. These flags are false positives."

"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."

"Presently they support micro-services, but the supporting methodology of the micro-services is not good enough at the moment."

"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, where code scans are being ran on an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."

"Checkmarx One can be improved on the side of faster scans, especially when our CI pipelines are scanning for vulnerabilities."

"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."

"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"

"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."

More Checkmarx One cons

"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

"It is a good product but a little overpriced."

"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."

"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."

"It's relatively expensive."

"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."

"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."

"Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

890,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

22%

Government

17%

Comms Service Provider

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

No data available

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?

I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Checkmarx?

One way Checkmarx One could be improved is if it could automatically run scans every month after implementation. If it is possible to set it in the SAST portal to scan the repositories automaticall...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 37% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

CodeScan Static Code Analysis vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 17% of the time

SonarQube vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 12% of the time

Contrast Security Assess vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 11% of the time

Coverity Static vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 11% of the time

Invicti vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 5% of the time

More Seeker Interactive Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

April 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Internet Security

April 2026

Download Seeker Interactive product report

Overview

Checkmarx One delivers robust security through seamless integration with SCM and CI/CD tools, ensuring reliable SAST and SCA. Primarily used by organizations for vulnerability detection, it supports cloud and on-premises deployment to enhance secure coding practices.

Checkmarx One provides organizations with comprehensive tools for secure software development, integrating effectively with CI/CD pipelines to scan thousands of applications. Its capabilities extend to identifying vulnerabilities in both code bases and third-party software. Enhancing workflow by supporting SCM solutions, it assists in maintaining secure coding standards and compliance. While excelling in various areas, it requires improvements in scan speed, reduction of false positives, and broader platform integration, particularly for COBOL and Swift. Its pricing model is noted as high, and demand exists for better tutorials and documentation.

What are the key features of Checkmarx One?

Comprehensive Integration: Seamlessly connects with SCM, CI/CD tools to streamline security workflows.
Accurate SAST and SCA: Precisely identifies vulnerabilities down to the exact line of code.
Custom Rules Configuration: Allows tailored security measures to match specific needs.
Quick Scanning: Provides fast analysis to speed up the development process.
Automated Code Remediation: Helps in efficiently fixing code vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect in reviews?

Improved Security: Enhances code safety, reducing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Effective False Positivity Management: Optimizes time spent on genuine issues.
Enhanced Development Processes: Integrates smoothly to boost secure coding initiatives.
Comprehensive Language Support: Facilitates scanning in multiple programming languages, accommodating diverse needs.

Industries implement Checkmarx One for secure coding compliance and vulnerability management across varying environments, choosing between cloud and on-premises deployment based on requirements. Its extensive language support and integration with DevSecOps practices make it a popular choice for organizations aiming to enhance software security.

Checkmarx

Seeker®, interactive application security testing (IAST) solution, gives you unparalleled visibility into your modern web, cloud based and microservices based app security posture. It automatically verifies, prioritizes and reports on critical vulnerabilities in real time. It identifies vulnerability trends against compliance standards (e.g., OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, GDPR, CAPEC, and CWE/SANS Top 25). Seeker enables security teams to identify and track sensitive data to ensure that it is handled securely and not stored in log files or databases with weak or no encryption. Seeker’s seamless integration into CI/CD workflows enables fast interactive application security testing at DevOps speed.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone

Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai, Imperva, Orca Security and others in API Security. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

890,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best API Security vendors.

We monitor all API Security 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.