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) (4th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (24th)
 

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 6.3%, down 7.1% compared to last year.
Polyspace Code Prover, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.4% mindshare, up 0.9% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity6.3%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)20.3%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other63.5%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polyspace Code Prover1.4%
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)20.8%
Checkmarx One10.2%
Other67.6%
Application Security Tools
 

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.…
Pradeep Panchakarla - PeerSpot reviewer
A reliable solution that provides excellent features and detects memory corruption
The run time analysis process must be improved. If we do not run with the main loop, it generates its own main and doesn’t allow developers to modify the execution sequences. The solution must provide more flexibility to the developers to manipulate the runtime analysis tools. The developer must be allowed to modify the main sequence. It will be very easy for them to test their use cases. Otherwise, Polyspace generates a random main file and executes all the functions randomly.

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 the integration with Jenkins."
"This solution is easy to use."
"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."
"It's very stable."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"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 easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"There should be additional IDE support."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"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."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Automation could be a challenge."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"The solution is affordable."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"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."
"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."
"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.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
4%
Manufacturing Company
39%
Computer Software Company
10%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
5%
Financial Services Firm
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
No data available
 

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 do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?
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,...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation. It require support. There could be an issue with range propag...
 

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 Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: August 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.