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

Coverity vs Semgrep 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
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Semgrep
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
27th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Supply Chain Management Software (3rd), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (13th), Static Code Analysis (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 7.4%, up from 6.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Semgrep is 2.3%, up from 0.3% 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.…
Henry Mwawai - PeerSpot reviewer
Automated code reviews and good scalability with custom rule adaptability
We use Semgrep to check custom user pipelines and test their claims for any vulnerabilities. We process the code by passing it through the testing process for any operability issues before sending feedback to the developers and providing the final product. This is part of the static testing…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its interprocedural analysis, which is advantageous because it compares favorably with other tools in terms of security and code analysis."
"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."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to write our custom rules."
 

Cons

"The setup takes very long."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"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."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"There should be more information on how to acquire the system, catering to beginners in application security, to make it more user-friendly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"It is expensive."
"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"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."
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is 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."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The solution is affordable."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 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%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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 needs improvement with Semgrep?
There should be more information on how to acquire the system, catering to beginners in application security, to make it more user-friendly.
What is your primary use case for Semgrep?
We use Semgrep to check custom user pipelines and test their claims for any vulnerabilities. We process the code by passing it through the testing process for any operability issues before sending ...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Semgrep Code, Semgrep Supply Chain, Semgrep AppSec Platform
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Policygenius, Tide, Lyft, Thinkific, FloQast, Vanta, and Fareportal
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.