We performed a comparison between CodeSonar and Polyspace Code Prover based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"It has been able to scale."
"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"It was expensive."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"The tool has some stability issues."
CodeSonar is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 7 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. CodeSonar is rated 8.2, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of CodeSonar writes "Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". CodeSonar is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, Semgrep Code and Fortify Static Code Analyzer, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, Parasoft SOAtest and GitLab. See our CodeSonar vs. Polyspace Code Prover report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
