We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"It has all the features we need."
"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"Coverity is scalable."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"It's very stable."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 67 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Mend.io, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover. See our Checkmarx One vs. Coverity report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
