Polyspace Code Prover is a sound static analysis tool that proves the absence of overflow, divide-by-zero, out-of-bounds array access, and certain other run-time errors in C and C++ source code. It produces results without requiring program execution, code instrumentation, or test cases. Polyspace Code Prover uses semantic analysis and abstract interpretation based on formal methods to verify software interprocedural, control, and data flow behavior. You can use it on handwritten code, generated code, or a combination of the two. Each operation is color-coded to indicate whether it is free of run-time errors, proven to fail, unreachable, or unproven.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Polyspace Code Prover | 1.4% |
| SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) | 20.8% |
| Checkmarx One | 10.2% |
| Other | 67.6% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Application Security Tools | Sep 16, 2025 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Sep 16, 2025 | Download |
| Comparison | Polyspace Code Prover vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) | Sep 16, 2025 | Download |
| Comparison | Polyspace Code Prover vs Veracode | Sep 16, 2025 | Download |
| Comparison | Polyspace Code Prover vs Checkmarx One | Sep 16, 2025 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) | 4.0 | 20.8% | 81% | 117 interviewsAdd to research |
| GitLab | 4.2 | 2.5% | 97% | 86 interviewsAdd to research |
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sw expert at a manufacturing company with 5,001-10,000 employees | 3.0 | We use Polyspace Code Prover across various projects for code verification to meet ISO 26262 compliance. However, it struggles with large-scale applications, showing false negatives and positives. Competing tools may offer better speed and quality balance. ROI remains unclear. |
| Software Engineer at Federal University of Minas Gerais | 4.5 | I find Polyspace Code Prover easy to use, especially with specific hardware requirements, allowing simple compiler selection. However, I'm having trouble with constraints and range propagation due to a lack of documentation. We're comparing it to LDRA for better static analysis tools. |
| Functional Safety Engineer at a manufacturing company with 5,001-10,000 employees | 4.0 | I use Polyspace Code Prover to check runtime issues, including memory overflows and corruptions. Its ability to detect undefined memory access is valuable. However, it needs improved runtime analysis flexibility. Compared to Coverity and Helix QAC, Polyspace provides more reliable information. |
| Principal Software Engineer at Valeo | 4.0 | We use Polyspace Code Prover for safety-critical components in the automotive industry, as it identifies potential code issues like invalid pointer accesses. While effective, it has a lengthy initial run time and requires dependency management, unlike our other tool, Klocwork. |
| Senior Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I use Polyspace Code Prover for static analysis of code files from vehicle development. It's reliable and highlights specific issues, making fixes efficient. While setup is easy, speed and format support could improve. ROI varies based on client demands. |
| Specialist at a tech consulting company with 501-1,000 employees | 4.0 | I used Polyspace Code Prover for an automotive project to perform static code checks at the unit level. It's user-friendly and integrates well into our environment but requires improved automation for increased efficiency, especially in time-constrained situations. |
