Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Checkmarx One vs Seeker Interactive comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

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
81
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)
Seeker Interactive
Ranking in API Security
18th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (16th), Mobile Threat Defense (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the API Security category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 5.4%, up from 5.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Seeker Interactive is 2.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Checkmarx One5.4%
Seeker Interactive2.5%
Other92.1%
API Security
 

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
San K - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization, especially in our CI/CD integration, where when we try to build any feature, they are always scanned by Checkmarx before they get released."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."
"By using the automated testing in Checkmarx One, we have saved around one or two days in a full week of our team because we have a lot of code to do with seven markets."
"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."
"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

"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Some were valid and some were not applicable for us based on the scenario."
"The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"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

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications)."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"It is an expensive solution."
"It's relatively expensive."
"The solution's price is high and you pay based on the number of users."
"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."
"We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year. I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year)."
"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Government
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
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.
What do you like most about Checkmarx?
Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

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: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.