We performed a comparison between Coverity and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This solution is easy to use."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The solution is scalable."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"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."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"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."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 30 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and SonarCloud, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, Klocwork and ReadyAPI. See our Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
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.
