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

Coverity Static vs OWASP Zap comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

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
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
10th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.7%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.9%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity Static4.7%
OWASP Zap3.9%
Other91.4%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

KT
Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation
Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist
We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.
Prasant Pokarnaa - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies
Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed
OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"We use the solution for security testing."
"The solution is scalable."
"​It has improved my organization with faster security tests.​"
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."
"The solution has tightened our security."
 

Cons

"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"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."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"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."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"For scalability, I would rate OWASP Zap between four to five out of ten."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"It is expensive."
"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."
"The solution is affordable."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"This solution is open source and free."
"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."
"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
880,511 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
4%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
 

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.
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about OWASP Zap?
The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?
OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
880,511 professionals have used our research since 2012.