We performed a comparison between Coverity and Klocwork based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, Klocwork comes out ahead of Coverity. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that Coverity is expensive and its support has a slow response time.
"This solution is easy to use."
"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 is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"The product is easy to use."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The reporting helps us understand the trend of our results and whether we improve over time. We can see the history within Klocwork's server architecture and know that we're making things better. It creates a great story for our management. We can demonstrate value and how our software is developing over time."
"Klocwork's most valuable feature is the static code analysis feature. It detects the potential problem earlier to allow the developer to receive feedback quickly and then address it before it becomes a problem."
"We like using the static analysis and code refactoring, which are very valuable because of our requirements to meet safety critical levels and reliability."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"The setup takes very long."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"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."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"Klocwork does have a problem with true positives. It only found 30% of true positives in the Juliet test case."
"The main problem is that since it only parses the code, the warnings or the problems that are given as a result of the report can sometimes require a lot of effort to analyze."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"I hope that in each new release they add new features relating to the addition of checkers, improving their analysis engines etc."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 13th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 20 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Klocwork is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Coverity vs. Klocwork 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.