Coverity vs Seeker comparison

The compared Coverity and Seeker solutions aren't in the same category. Coverity is ranked #5 in SAST , with an average rating of 7.9, and holds a 7.2% mindshare in the category. Seeker is ranked #18 in IS , and holds a 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Coverity users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Seeker users who would recommend it.

Coverity

Read 43 Coverity reviews

13,067 Views
11,107 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Seeker

Read 1 Seeker review

800 Views
8 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Coverity

Seeker

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

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).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 861,524 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

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (5th)

Seeker

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Internet Security (18th), Mobile Threat Defense (14th), API Security (21st)

Mindshare comparison

Coverity and Seeker aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Coverity is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 7.2%, up 6.7% compared to last year.
Seeker, on the other hand, focuses on Internet Security, holds 0.1% mindshare.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Internet Security

Featured Reviews

Jaile Sebes

Senior Software Architect at Siemens Industry

Resolving critical software issues demands faster implementation and better integration

We use Coverity primarily to find issues such as software bugs and memory leaks, especially in C++ and C# projects. It helps us identify deadlocks, synchronization issues, and product crashes Coverity has been instrumental in resolving product crashes by detecting various issues like deadlocks.…

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

"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."

"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."

"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."

"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."

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

"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."

"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."

"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."

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

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

"The product lacks sufficient customization options."

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."

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

"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."

"The tool needs to improve its reporting."

"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."

More Coverity 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

"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."

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

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"It is expensive."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."

"The tool was fairly priced."

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."

More Coverity 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

861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Financial Services Firm

19%

Government

15%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity

Compared 46% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

More Coverity Competitors

Contrast Security Assess vs Seeker

Compared 41% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Seeker

Compared 17% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Seeker

Compared 15% of the time

More Seeker Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Coverity

July 2025

Download Coverity product report

Buyer's Guide

Internet Security

June 2025

Download Seeker 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)

July 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

861,524 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.