Coverity Static vs Seeker Interactive comparison

The compared Coverity Static and Seeker Interactive solutions aren't in the same category. Coverity Static is ranked #6 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 4.2% mindshare in the category. Seeker Interactive is ranked #16 in IS , and holds a 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Coverity Static users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Seeker Interactive users who would recommend it.

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,075 Views
8,362 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Seeker Interactive

Read 1 Seeker Interactive review

953 Views
86 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Seeker Interactive

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Coverity Static and Seeker Interactive based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 882,813 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

Coverity Static

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th)

Seeker Interactive

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Internet Security (16th), Mobile Threat Defense (14th), API Security (17th)

Mindshare comparison

Coverity Static and Seeker Interactive aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Coverity Static is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 4.2%, down 7.9% compared to last year.
Seeker Interactive, on the other hand, focuses on Internet Security, holds 1.1% mindshare, up 0.0% since last year.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Coverity Static	4.2%
SonarQube	18.2%
Checkmarx One	10.3%
Other	67.3%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Internet Security Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Seeker Interactive	1.1%
Cisco Umbrella	30.4%
Zscaler Internet Access	28.8%
Other	39.7%

Internet Security

Featured Reviews

Kasiraja Thangapandian

Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation

Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist

We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.

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

"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."

"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."

"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."

"This solution is easy to use."

"It is a scalable solution."

"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."

"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."

"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."

More Coverity Static 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. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."

Cons

"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."

"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."

"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."

"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."

"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."

"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."

"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."

"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."

More Coverity Static 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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"Coverity is quite expensive."

"The tool's price is somewhere in the middle. It's neither cheap nor expensive. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten."

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."

"The solution is affordable."

More Coverity Static 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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

882,813 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Healthcare Company

Financial Services Firm

26%

Government

16%

Comms Service Provider

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

No data available

Questions from the Community

How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?

We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...

See all answers

What do you like most about Coverity?

The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 28% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

CodeScan Static Code Analysis vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 21% of the time

Contrast Security Assess vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 18% of the time

SonarQube vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 16% of the time

Operant AI vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 13% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 11% of the time

More Seeker Interactive Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

February 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Buyer's Guide

Internet Security

February 2026

Download Seeker Interactive product report

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis

No data available

Overview

Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise actionable remediation advice and context-specific eLearning help your developers understand how to fix their prioritized issues quickly, without having to become security experts.

Coverity seamlessly integrates automated security testing into your CI/CD pipelines and supports your existing development tools and workflows. Choose where and how to do your development: on-premises or in the cloud with the Polaris Software Integrity Platform (SaaS), a highly scalable, cloud-based application security platform. Coverity supports more than 20 languages and 200 frameworks and templates.

Black Duck

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

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

882,813 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.