Coverity vs Kiuwan comparison

Read 23 Kiuwan reviews

1,350 Views
1,036 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Coverity

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Kiuwan and Coverity are notable tools in the code analysis category. Coverity has an upper hand due to its comprehensive features and superior functionality.

Features: Kiuwan provides a cloud-based architecture, facilitating integration and workflow streamlining. It offers responsive support and competitive pricing. Coverity is praised for its static analysis, detailed reporting, and a robust feature set, enhancing its value proposition.

Room for Improvement: Kiuwan could improve detailed reporting, expand customization options, and enhance user interface usability. Coverity might focus on developing better documentation, increasing update speed, and improving accessibility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Kiuwan is easy to deploy, supported by excellent customer service, aiding swift issue resolution. Coverity has a more complex installation process but also offers strong customer support. There is potential for Coverity to refine its deployment model for a smoother experience.

Pricing and ROI: Kiuwan is seen as cost-effective, providing high ROI through lower setup costs and efficient operations. Coverity, with a higher initial cost, justifies its pricing with advanced features and long-term benefits, offering a favorable ROI based on its capability set.

To learn more, read our detailed Coverity vs. Kiuwan Report (Updated: April 2025).

Coverity vs. Kiuwan

Download the complete report

Helped 849,963 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

Coverity

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

4th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Kiuwan

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

24th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (28th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 7.5%, up from 6.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain

Information Security Analyst at Banglalink

Offers impressive reporting features with user-friendliness and high scalability

The solution can be easily setup but requires heavy integration due to the multiple types of port and programming languages involved. Comparing the resource requirements of the solution I would say it can be installed effortlessly. I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. A professional needs some pre-acquired knowledge to manage Coverity's deployment process, but the local solution partners provide support well enough for trouble-free deployment. The overall deployment process of Coverity took around two and a half hours in our organization. The deployment duration depends upon the operating system and resources including high-end RAM and CPU processors.

Read full review

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala

CyberRisk Solution Advisor at Deloitte

Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement

Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.

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

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

"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."

"This solution is easy to use."

"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."

"It's very stable."

"The reporting feature is up to the mark."

"What I find most effective about Coverity is its low rate of false positives. I've seen other platforms with many false positives, but with Coverity, most vulnerabilities it identifies are genuine. This allows me to focus on real issues."

More Coverity pros

"The solution offers very good technical support."

"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."

"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."

"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."

"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."

"The solution has a continuous integration process."

"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."

"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."

More Kiuwan pros

Cons

"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."

"The solution could use more rules."

"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."

"The tool needs to improve its reporting."

"The product lacks sufficient customization options."

"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."

"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."

"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."

More Coverity cons

"It could improve its scalability abilities."

"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."

"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."

"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."

"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."

"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."

"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."

"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."

More Kiuwan cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is affordable."

"Coverity is quite expensive."

"It is expensive."

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."

"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"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."

"Coverity is very expensive."

More Coverity pricing and cost advice

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."

"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."

"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."

"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."

"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."

"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."

"Check with your account manager."

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

849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

33%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

What do you like most about Kiuwan?

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kiuwan?

I'm not entirely sure about the price and business aspects, but I assume Checkmarx might be less expensive. I think Checkmarx might offer more affordable options, especially in its smaller business...

What needs improvement with Kiuwan?

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity

Comparisons

Compared 50% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity

Compared 7% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

More Coverity Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Kiuwan

Compared 53% of the time

Veracode vs Kiuwan

Compared 9% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Kiuwan

Compared 9% of the time

Snyk vs Kiuwan

Compared 9% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Kiuwan

Compared 5% of the time

More Kiuwan Competitors

Product Reports

Coverity

Download Coverity product report

Download Kiuwan product report

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis

No data available

Overview

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

Software analytics technology with a breadth of third party integrations that takes into account the wealth of applications your teams are currently using.

We facilitate and encourage work between unlocalized teams. We understand the complexity of working on multi technology environments, constantly striving to increase the number of programming languages and technologies we support.

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial

Coverity vs. Kiuwan