Contrast Security Assess vs Coverity Static comparison

Contrast Security and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Contrast Security is ranked #27 with an average rating of 8.0, while Black Duck is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.0. Contrast Security holds a 0.6% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 5.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Contrast Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

1,439 Views
748 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,864 Views
9,126 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

Contrast Security Assess and Coverity Static compete in the static analysis category. Coverity Static can have the upper hand due to its advanced features and comprehensive code inspection capabilities.

Features: Contrast Security Assess offers real-time monitoring, seamless integration with software development tools, and an effective interactive application security testing (IAST) component. Coverity Static provides comprehensive code analysis to pinpoint critical vulnerabilities, a low false positive rate, and integration with popular CI/CD tools.

Room for Improvement: Contrast Security Assess could improve its usage of Protect functionality alongside other overlapping security tools and expand upon its user interface for better clarity. Coverity Static could streamline its setup process, offer more detailed customization options for developers, and enhance its documentation for ease of understanding.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Contrast Security Assess facilitates a quick deployment with efficient customer support. Coverity Static, despite a potentially more complex setup due to its robust analysis tools, compensates with reliable assistance and comprehensive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Contrast Security Assess presents a competitive pricing model, offering a cost-effective solution with good ROI through its integration and support. Coverity Static involves a higher setup cost, but its extensive feature set yields a strong ROI for enterprises requiring deep code analysis capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static Report (Updated: November 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static

November 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 873,003 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

Contrast Security Assess

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

27th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (26th)

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

5th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Contrast Security Assess is 0.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 5.4%, down from 7.5% 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 Static	5.4%
Contrast Security Assess	0.6%
Other	94.0%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala

CyberRisk Solution Advisor at Deloitte

A stable solution that provides lots of details on web-based vulnerabilities and source code reviews

Technical support for the solution should be faster. We have to further analyze what kind of CVEs are in the reported libraries and what part of the code is affected. That analysis can be added to the report that Contrast Security Assess gives. Further analysis should be done of the third-party libraries report that it gives. The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities. The onboarding or the setup of Contrast Security Assess can get a little easier.

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

"This has changed the way that developers are looking at usage of third-party libraries, upfront. It's changing our model of development and our culture of development to ensure that there is more thought being put into the usage of third-party libraries."

"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."

"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."

"The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of."

"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."

"The most valuable feature is the continuous monitoring aspect: the fact that we don't have to wait for scans to complete for the tool to identify vulnerabilities. They're automatically identified through developers' business-as-usual processes."

"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."

"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away. In our internal comparisons among different tools, Contrast consistently finds more impactful vulnerabilities, and also identifies vulnerabilities that are nearly guaranteed to be there, meaning that the chance of false positives is very low."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

"This solution is easy to use."

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

"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."

"It's very stable."

"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."

"It has the lowest false positives."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."

"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."

"The product's retesting part needs improvement. The tool also needs improvement in the suggestions provided for fixing vulnerabilities. It relies more on documentation rather than on quick fixes."

"To instrument an agent, it has to be running on a type of application technology that the agent recognizes and understands. It's excellent when it works. If we're using an application that is using an unsupported technology, then we can't instrument it at all. We do use PHP and Contrast presently doesn't support that, although it's on their roadmap. My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."

"Contrast Security Assess covers a wide range of applications like .NET Framework, Java, PSP, Node.js, etc. But there are some like Ubuntu and the .NET Core which are not covered. They have it in their roadmap to have these agents. If they have that, we will have complete coverage."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."

"We'd like it to be faster."

"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 not a user-friendly product."

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

"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."

"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."

"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."

"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."

"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."

"The solution is expensive."

"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."

"The solution is affordable."

"The tool's price is somewhere in the middle. It's neither cheap nor expensive. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten."

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

"Coverity is very expensive."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

"The tool was fairly priced."

"It is expensive."

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

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

873,003 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

25%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

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

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Contrast Security Assess?

When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Contrast Security Assess?

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Contrast Security Assess?

Contrast Security Assess is deployed on-cloud in our organization. I would recommend Contrast Security Assess to other users. It's a really good tool. It provides lots of details on web-based vulne...

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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 19% of the time

Seeker Interactive vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 12% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 9% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 9% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 8% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess Competitors

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 37% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess

November 2025

Download Contrast Security Assess product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

November 2025

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

Contrast Assess

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

Contrast Security is the world’s leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.

Contrast Security

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

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static

November 2025

Free Report: Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static

Find out what your peers are saying about Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static and other solutions. Updated: November 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

873,003 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Contrast Security Assess 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.