We performed a comparison between Coverity and Kiuwan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's very stable."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"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 interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"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 personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"Coverity is not stable."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"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."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 23 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. Kiuwan report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
