Contrast Assess vs Seeker

Quick Verdict

Contrast Assess and Seeker are both agent-based IAST tools that instrument running applications to find vulnerabilities from inside the runtime. They share the same fundamental approach but differ in how they validate findings, what they do beyond vulnerability detection, and how they fit into the broader security toolchain.

Contrast Assess is the better fit for development teams that want always-on security testing baked into their existing QA workflow. The passive instrumentation catches vulnerabilities as tests run, the free Community Edition lowers the barrier to entry, and the upgrade path to Contrast Protect (RASP) means the same agent can move from testing to production defense.

Seeker is the stronger choice for organizations where compliance reporting drives security investment. The active verification approach confirms every finding is exploitable before it hits your backlog. The sensitive data tracking maps how personal and financial information flows through your code, which is directly useful for PCI DSS, GDPR, and HIPAA audits.

Feature Comparison

Contrast Assess vs Seeker: Head-to-Head

Detection Approach: Passive Instrumentation vs Active Verification

This is the defining technical difference between the two tools.

Contrast Assess uses passive instrumentation. Sensors embed into the application at startup and observe how data flows through the runtime during normal test execution. When tainted input reaches a dangerous operation — a SQL query, an HTML output, a file path — without proper sanitization, Contrast flags the vulnerability with the exact code location and data flow trace. The sensors watch continuously without modifying application behavior. Contrast reports a 95%+ true positive rate for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities using this approach.

Seeker adds an active verification step on top of runtime observation. When Seeker detects a potential vulnerability, it generates safe exploit payloads and sends them through the application to confirm the issue is genuinely exploitable. If the payload does not reach the vulnerable sink or gets blocked by existing defenses, the finding is dropped. Only verified vulnerabilities make it into the final report. This patented approach means Seeker’s output is a list of confirmed, exploitable issues rather than probable vulnerabilities.

The practical difference shows up in triage. Contrast Assess reports more findings because passive observation catches everything that looks vulnerable, even if some issues are mitigated by environmental factors. Seeker reports fewer findings but each one has been confirmed exploitable. Teams that are drowning in triage backlogs will appreciate Seeker’s approach. Teams that want maximum visibility into potential risk, even if some findings need manual validation, get more from Contrast.

Language and Protocol Coverage

Seeker covers more ground here. It supports Java, .NET, Node.js, Go, Python, Ruby, PHP, and JVM languages including Scala, Kotlin, and Groovy. That adds up to roughly ten languages, which matters for organizations running polyglot environments or maintaining legacy PHP applications alongside modern services.

Contrast Assess supports Java, .NET, Node.js, Python, Go, and Ruby. Six core languages with broad framework coverage within each. The missing pieces are PHP and the JVM variants (Scala, Kotlin, Groovy). If your stack includes any of those, Seeker is the only option between these two.

On API protocols, Seeker supports REST, SOAP, GraphQL, and gRPC. It also discovers API endpoints exercised during testing, which helps maintain accurate API inventories. Contrast Assess handles REST APIs well but does not list the same breadth of protocol support.

Compliance and Sensitive Data Tracking

Seeker has a clear advantage for compliance-driven organizations. The sensitive data tracking feature monitors how personal information, credentials, and financial data flow through your application — where it enters, which code processes it, and where it ends up. This produces audit-ready documentation for PCI DSS (cardholder data flows), GDPR (personal data processing), and HIPAA (protected health information handling).

Seeker also maps vulnerability findings to compliance frameworks: OWASP Top 10, CWE/SANS Top 25, PCI DSS, GDPR, and HIPAA. Compliance teams can run a report showing exactly which regulatory requirements are affected by detected vulnerabilities. That is directly useful during audits and saves the manual work of mapping security findings to regulatory controls.

Contrast Assess reports against OWASP Top 10 and standard vulnerability classifications. The Contrast Platform provides risk-level dashboards and trend reporting. However, Contrast does not offer the same dedicated sensitive data tracking or the breadth of regulatory compliance mapping that Seeker provides. If your security program is driven by PCI DSS, GDPR, or HIPAA requirements, Seeker addresses those needs more directly.

Platform Ecosystem and Upgrade Paths

Both tools sit within larger security platforms, but the ecosystems are structured differently.

Contrast Assess is part of the Contrast Platform, which includes Contrast Scan (SAST), Contrast SCA (software composition analysis), and Contrast Protect (RASP). The key selling point is the shared agent architecture. The same agent that runs Assess during testing can run Protect in production to block attacks at runtime. You do not need to deploy a separate tool or re-instrument your application. For teams that want to move from finding vulnerabilities to blocking exploits, this continuity is a real advantage.

Seeker sits within the Black Duck portfolio alongside Coverity (SAST) and Black Duck SCA. Following the 2024 divestiture from Synopsys, these tools now operate under Black Duck Software. Seeker integrates with Black Duck SCA to correlate IAST findings with open-source vulnerabilities. It also feeds data into Splunk and IBM QRadar for centralized security monitoring. However, there is no RASP equivalent in the Black Duck portfolio — Seeker is focused on testing, not production defense.

The ecosystem choice often depends on what you already run. If you use Contrast Scan or Contrast SCA, adding Assess keeps everything in one platform. If you use Coverity or Black Duck SCA, Seeker slots in alongside your existing tools.

Deployment and CI/CD Integration

The deployment models differ in a meaningful way. Contrast Assess uses a cloud-hosted platform. You deploy agents to your application, and findings report back to Contrast’s cloud. Setup is relatively quick — Contrast claims you can instrument an application within an hour using the Community Edition. The platform provides IDE integration so developers see findings directly in Visual Studio and other editors.

Seeker requires a separate on-premises enterprise server (Windows or Linux) before you can deploy agents. This adds infrastructure overhead and setup time compared to Contrast’s cloud model. For organizations that require on-premises control over security data, this is actually a benefit. For teams that want fast deployment without managing server infrastructure, it is a hurdle.

For CI/CD, Contrast offers plugins and an API for pipeline integration. Seeker provides a REST API for automation that can be wired into any CI/CD system. Neither tool has the same level of out-of-the-box pipeline tooling (official GitHub Actions, Docker images) that you see with SAST or DAST tools. In both cases, integration requires some configuration work with the vendor’s API.

When to Choose Contrast Assess

Choose Contrast Assess if:

• You want always-on IAST that runs passively during your existing tests with no separate scan phase
• The free Community Edition matters for evaluation or for small teams starting with IAST
• You need a path from vulnerability detection (Assess) to runtime attack blocking (Protect) using the same agent
• Your stack uses Java, .NET, Node.js, Python, Go, or Ruby without needing PHP or JVM variants
• Cloud-hosted deployment with fast setup time is preferred over managing on-premises infrastructure
• You already use or plan to use Contrast Scan (SAST) or Contrast SCA for a unified platform

When to Choose Seeker

Choose Seeker if:

• Compliance reporting for PCI DSS, GDPR, or HIPAA is a primary driver for your security program
• Active verification that confirms exploitability before reporting is worth more to you than maximum finding volume
• Your stack includes PHP, Scala, Kotlin, or Groovy where Contrast does not have agent support
• Sensitive data tracking — knowing exactly where personal and financial data flows through your code — is a requirement
• You need SIEM integration with Splunk or IBM QRadar for centralized vulnerability monitoring
• You already use Black Duck SCA or Coverity and want correlated findings across IAST, SCA, and SAST

Both tools represent the top tier of commercial IAST. The choice usually comes down to whether your priority is developer workflow integration and platform breadth (Contrast) or compliance depth and verified-only findings (Seeker).

For more options, browse our IAST tools category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Written by

Suphi Cankurt

Suphi Cankurt is an application security enthusiast based in Helsinki, Finland. He reviews and compares 129 AppSec tools across 10 categories on AppSec Santa. Learn more.