We performed a comparison between Coverity and Veracode 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."The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"Coverity is scalable."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"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."
"Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution."
"The most valuable feature is the SAST capability and its integration into the Veracode pipelines."
"It eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report."
"The solution's ability to help create secure software is very valuable. We're a zero-trust networking company so we want to have the ability to say that we're practicing security seriously. Having something like Veracode allows us to have confidence when we're speaking to people about our product that we can back up what we're doing with a certification, with a reputable platform, and say, "This is what we're using to scan an application. Here's the number of vulnerabilities that are on an application. And here's the risk that we're accepting.""
"The article scanning is excellent."
"The findings of their security analysis are wonderful. You can easily go through all the analyses done by Veracode. You can see what are the flaws and what could be the best possible resolution to minimize those flaws in the application. When an application is being used by the public, security is a challenge. Veracode helps us to analyze all the security flaws, discrepancies, and vulnerabilities inside the application. It provides good reports."
"One of the features they have is Software Composition Analysis. When organizations use third-party, open source libraries with their application development, because they're open source they quite often have a lot of bugs. There are always patches coming out for those open source applications. You really have to stay on your toes and keep up with any third-party libraries that might be integrated into your application. Veracode's Software Composition Analysis scans those libraries and we find that very valuable."
"We use Veracode static analysis during development to eliminate vulnerability issues"
"Coverity is not stable."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"The setup takes very long."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"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."
"Veracode's container scanning could be improved. We containerize all the platforms we use inside a Docker image. For example, we create a Microsoft Docker image that we build our application on top of. I would like Veracode to implement IT scans before we commit the code."
"Static scanning takes a long time, so you need to patiently wait for the scan to achieve. I also think the software could be more accurate. It isn't 100 percent, so you shouldn't completely rely on Veracode. You need to manually verify its findings."
"Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided."
"If the dynamic scan is improved, then the speed might go up. That is somehow not happening. We have raised this concern. It might also help if they could time limit scans to 24 hours instead of letting them go for three days. Then, whatever results could be shared, even if the scan is not complete, that would definitely help us."
"The support team could be more responsive, and the dependency of users on the support team is too high and should be reduced."
"It would help to have more training for developers to help them set it up."
"Sometimes we get a lot of false positives even after configuring our policies, so that could be improved."
"Veracode can improve the price model and how they bill the final offer to customers. It's based on the amount of traffic. For example, you can buy 1 gigabyte distributed across various applications, and each one can consume part of the whole allotment of traffic data."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 194 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Veracode 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 Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and SonarCloud. See our Coverity vs. Veracode 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.
