We performed a comparison between Coverity and Polyspace Code Prover based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"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 is a scalable solution."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"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 product detects memory corruptions."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"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."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"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."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Polaris Software Integrity Platform, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, CodeSonar, Parasoft SOAtest and GitLab.
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.
