Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Checkmarx SAST vs Coverity comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Checkmarx SAST
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
21st
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Coverity
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx SAST is 1.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity is 7.0%, up from 6.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Cuneyt KALPAKOGLU Phd. - PeerSpot reviewer
Identifying code vulnerabilities swiftly with no need to complete the coding and offers good security
The primary use case of Checkmarx SAST is application security, specifically static application security testing. It is essential and the root of this concept I did not find measurable information about the financial benefits or return on investment. The most important competitive advantage and…
Jaile Sebes - PeerSpot reviewer
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.…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."
"The most important competitive advantage and benefit is the ability to identify vulnerabilities in the source code immediately without needing to complete the coding."
"The most important feature is that Checkmarx protects our company against attacks."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"This solution is easy to use."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
 

Cons

"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue."
"The on-premises version is more expensive compared to the cloud version."
"We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability."
"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."
"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"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."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"It is expensive."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"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."
"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."
"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx SAST?
We were users in a small country, and we paid one consolidated bill for all the tools, so I don't know the specific amount for Checkmarx.
What needs improvement with Checkmarx SAST?
We had some issues where Checkmarx did not recognize a vulnerability. We had to talk with the vendor, and they had to include an improvement in the tool to resolve this issue.
What is your primary use case for Checkmarx SAST?
We integrated Checkmarx with our pipelines in Jenkins. We had it fully automated for static security scanning to protect our company against attacks.
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...
What do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
 

Also Known As

SAST
Synopsys Static Analysis
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx SAST vs. Coverity and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.