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

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover 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) (8th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Coverity Static and Polyspace Code Prover aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Coverity Static is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 3.8%, down 8.0% compared to last year.
Polyspace Code Prover, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.3% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Coverity Static3.8%
SonarQube17.7%
Checkmarx One10.4%
Other68.1%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Polyspace Code Prover1.3%
SonarQube16.3%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other72.5%
Application Security Tools
 

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.
reviewer2760282 - PeerSpot reviewer
General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
"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."
"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."
"The outputs are very reliable."
 

Cons

"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"Coverity is not stable."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"Automation could be a challenge."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"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."
"It is expensive."
"The solution is affordable."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
4%
Manufacturing Company
37%
Computer Software Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
6%
Healthcare Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

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 needs improvement with Coverity?
The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but they take a longer time to respond. The core support is not straightforward, an...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two ...
What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?
It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.
What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?
We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.