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

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing 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

Coverity Static
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Coverity Static is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 6.3%, down 7.1% compared to last year.
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 22.1% mindshare, up 18.6% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity6.3%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)20.3%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other63.5%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Defensics Fuzzing22.1%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional33.6%
GitLab22.1%
Other22.19999999999999%
Fuzz Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.…
SK
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
 

Cons

"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."
"The solution needs to improve its false positives."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The solution is affordable."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"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."
"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."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"Licensing is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
4%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Codenomicon Defensics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: August 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.