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

Coverity vs OpenText Core Application Security vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) 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:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 7.2%, up from 6.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 4.0%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is 22.7%, down from 27.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jaile Sebes - PeerSpot reviewer
Resolving critical software issues demands faster implementation and better integration
We use Coverity primarily to find issues such as software bugs and memory leaks, especially in C++ and C# projects. It helps us identify deadlocks, synchronization issues, and product crashes Coverity has been instrumental in resolving product crashes by detecting various issues like deadlocks.…
Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis
Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.
Sthembiso Zondi - PeerSpot reviewer
Consistent improvements in code quality and security with effective integration and reliable technical support
The features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) that I find most useful are the suggestions received from reviewing the code. When they review the code, they provide suggestions on how to fix it, and we find those very useful from a development perspective. We use SonarQube Server's (formerly SonarQube) centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve. We use that for organizational improvement purposes. The ability to tailor metrics tracking in SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) has been beneficial to my team. There are team-specific dashboards which are related to specific repositories they utilize, and we have that aggregative dashboard that shows the whole organization's performance. We can drill down per specific repository, which makes it easier for the team to improve specific things.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a scalable solution."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"It improves future security scans."
"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"The most valuable features are the segregation containment and the suspension of product services."
"It is a very good tool for analysis and security vulnerability checking."
"If code coverage is a low number then that's of great value to me."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"I like the by-default policies that are they, as they seem to cover most of what I need."
"The features of SonarQube that I find most valuable for identifying code smells are its comprehensive code analysis capabilities, which cover various aspects of code sustainability."
"This solution has helped with the integration and building of our CICD pipeline."
"The software quality gate streamlines the product's quality."
 

Cons

"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 is not stable."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"We had some issues where the Quality Gate check sometimes gets stuck and it is unclear."
"The exporting capabilities could be improved. Currently, exporting is fully dependent on the SonarQube environment."
"There are times that we have the database crash. However, this might be an issue with how we have configured it and not a software issue. Apart from this, I do not see any issues with the solution."
"I don't believe you can have metrics of code quality based upon code analysis. I don't think it's possible for a computer to do it."
"There are limitations to the free version that limit development options as far as languages."
"From a reporting perspective, we sometimes have problems interpreting the vulnerability scan reports. For example, if it finds a possible threat, our analysts have to manually check the provided reports, and sometimes we have issues getting all the data needed to properly verify if it's accurate or not."
"There could be better integration with other products."
"The product must improve security analysis."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is affordable."
"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."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"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."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"It is cost-effective."
"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."
"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
"The product’s price is lower than Veracode’s price."
"It is very expensive. Its price should be improved."
"The price point on SonarQube is good."
"It's a bit expensive for us. The currency rate of the dollar is a problem but it may be fine for other countries."
"We are using the Developer Edition and the cost is based on the amount of code that is being processed."
"We are using the open-source version, which is available free of cost."
"We are using the community version of the solution and we plan on purchasing licenses for the upgraded version soon. There is a limitation on how many lines of code can be scanned and this is why we are going to purchase a license for an increased amount."
"SonarQube is a cost-effective solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
862,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
4%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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 securi...
What do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the ...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which ...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. Son...
How does Snyk compare with SonarQube?
Snyk does a great job identifying and reducing vulnerabilities. This solution is fully automated and monitors 24/7 to...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
Sonar
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: July 2025.
862,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.