Checkmarx One vs Seeker Interactive comparison

Checkmarx and Black Duck are both solutions in the API Security category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while Black Duck is ranked #17. Checkmarx holds a 5.2% mindshare in APIS, compared to Black Duck’s 2.7% 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

18,489 Views
555 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Seeker Interactive

Read 1 Seeker Interactive review

953 Views
219 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Seeker Interactive

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

Checkmarx One and Seeker Interactive are competitive products within the application security domain. Seeker Interactive may have the upper hand due to its robust DAST capabilities and real-time assessment.

Features: Checkmarx One delivers extensive static application security testing, exceptional language support, and comprehensive code analysis. Seeker Interactive shines with dynamic application security testing, real-time interactivity, and realistic attack simulations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One provides a cloud-based model for easy integration and fast setup, coupled with supportive customer service. Seeker Interactive offers adaptable deployment with cloud and on-premise options, featuring sustained support and flexibility for varied infrastructures.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One presents a competitively priced subscription model, ensuring strong ROI with its wide capabilities. Seeker Interactive, although generally higher in cost, offers considerable ROI through advanced features that promise long-term value and cost savings.

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

Buyer's Guide

API Security

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 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

3rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (2nd), 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 (7th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

Seeker Interactive

Ranking in API Security

17th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

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

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 5.2%, down from 5.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Seeker Interactive is 2.7%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Security Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Checkmarx One	5.2%
Seeker Interactive	2.7%
Other	92.1%

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

"The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for."

"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."

"The best features Checkmarx One offers, in my opinion, are that it is easy to use, and there is not much deep diving into this."

"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."

"Vulnerability details is valuable."

"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."

"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."

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

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

Cons

"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."

"Checkmarx needs improvement in its Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and API security features."

"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."

"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."

"We can run only one project at a time."

"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."

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

"For Checkmarx One, I think that adding repositories and scanning impromptu code could improve it."

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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000."

"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."

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

"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."

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

"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."

"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 solution is costly."

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

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

25%

Government

17%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

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 do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 47% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

CodeScan Static Code Analysis vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 19% of the time

Contrast Security Assess vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 19% of the time

SonarQube vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 15% of the time

Coverity Static vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 14% of the time

iVerify vs Seeker Interactive

Compared 9% of the time

More Seeker Interactive Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

February 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Internet Security

January 2026

Download Seeker Interactive product report

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

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, Checkmarx and others in API Security. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 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.