Acunetix vs Coverity Static comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.4, while Black Duck is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 3.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 6.3% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,943 Views
3,863 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

12,008 Views
10,207 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

Acunetix and Coverity Static compete in the application security and code analysis sector, with Coverity Static seeming to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive code quality checks and strong integration capabilities.

Features: Acunetix offers ease of use with interactive application security testing and robust reporting outputs. It boasts scalability as both a standalone and integrated solution, and it features a low false positive rate. Coverity Static excels in handling comprehensive code quality checks with a focus on security analysis. It offers extensibility through integrations with popular CI/CD tools and has a low false positive rate.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix needs to enhance its IAS tool, provide more robust authentication and authorization settings, and reduce false positives in scans. It also faces challenges with licensing restrictions and high bandwidth consumption during scans. Coverity Static could improve its user interface and provide better support for customizing rules and managing false positives. There is a significant demand for better integration with dynamic scans and additional IDE support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix offers flexible deployment options, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, but its support quality is inconsistent. Some users experience excellent responsiveness, while others encounter delays. Coverity Static has flexible deployment as well, with mixed support experiences. Users appreciate its one-on-one support meetings and fast response times, though reliance on resellers can slow issue resolutions.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix faces criticism for significant price increases, causing dissatisfaction among some customers. Despite its initial value through add-on features, many find ROI in improved security processes. Coverity Static, while expensive, is priced based on user count. This could be costly for large teams, but its robust features and comprehensive development environment support justify the investment with significant long-term ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Coverity Static Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,370 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

Acunetix

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

4th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.2%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 6.3%, down from 7.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Coverity	6.3%
Acunetix	3.2%
Other	90.5%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

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

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The usability and overall scan results are good."

"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."

"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."

"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."

"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."

"The solution is highly stable."

More Acunetix pros

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."

"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."

"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 product has deeper scanning capabilities."

"The product is easy to use."

"What I find most effective about Coverity is its low rate of false positives. I've seen other platforms with many false positives, but with Coverity, most vulnerabilities it identifies are genuine. This allows me to focus on real issues."

"It's very stable."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."

"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."

"There is room for improvement in the pricing."

"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."

"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."

More Acunetix cons

"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."

"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."

"The solution could use more rules."

"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."

"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."

"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."

"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."

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

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

"The solution is expensive."

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."

"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."

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

"Coverity is quite expensive."

"The tool was fairly priced."

"Coverity is very expensive."

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."

"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."

"It is expensive."

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

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

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

See all answers

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

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 17% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 10% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Tenable.io Web Application Scanning vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity Static

Compared 41% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

September 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

September 2025

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

Invicti

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

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

September 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Coverity Static and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. Coverity Static 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.