Coverity vs Synopsys API Security Testing comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Synopsys Logo
17,611 views|11,453 comparisons
88% willing to recommend
Synopsys Logo
490 views|339 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Coverity and Synopsys API Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST).
To learn more, read our detailed Application Security Testing (AST) Report (Updated: April 2024).
769,662 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"It has the lowest false positives.""This solution is easy to use.""The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code.""Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects.""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.""The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that.""The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins.""It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

More Coverity Pros →

"The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares."

More Synopsys API Security Testing Pros →

Cons
"The setup takes very long.""The solution could use more rules.""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.""I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse.""We'd like it to be faster.""The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins.""Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations.""The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."

More Coverity Cons →

"The solution required us to use our team and we spoke to Synopsys API Security Testing's support to do the implementation. We use two people from our team for the implementation. and one person for maintenance."

More Synopsys API Security Testing Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Coverity is quite expensive."
  • "The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
  • "The price is competitive with other solutions."
  • "It is expensive."
  • "Coverity is very 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."
  • "The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
  • "The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
  • More Coverity Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Testing (AST) solutions are best for your needs.
    769,662 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
    Top Answer:The most valuable features of Synopsys API Security Testing are the metrics, results, and threat vectors that it shares.
    Top Answer:The solutions pricing model is based on the number of lines of code. Overall it is priced well, it is reasonable.
    Top Answer:We are using Synopsys API Security Testing for scanning APIs for risks and vulnerabilities and to understand our posture before deployment within our business.
    Ranking
    Views
    17,611
    Comparisons
    11,453
    Reviews
    22
    Average Words per Review
    382
    Rating
    8.0
    Views
    490
    Comparisons
    339
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    310
    Rating
    7.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Synopsys Static Analysis
    Learn More
    Overview

    Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise actionable remediation advice and context-specific eLearning help your developers understand how to fix their prioritized issues quickly, without having to become security experts. 

    Coverity seamlessly integrates automated security testing into your CI/CD pipelines and supports your existing development tools and workflows. Choose where and how to do your development: on-premises or in the cloud with the Polaris Software Integrity Platform (SaaS), a highly scalable, cloud-based application security platform. Coverity supports 22 languages and over 70 frameworks and templates.

    AppSec testing optimized for the needs of API developers
    APIs provide open, flexible interfaces that enable applications and services to talk to each other. But these characteristics can also make it difficult to build secure software—and even more difficult for traditional AppSec tools to test it.

    Sample Customers
    MStar Semiconductor, Alcatel-Lucent
    Information Not Available
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Manufacturing Company36%
    Comms Service Provider20%
    Computer Software Company20%
    Retailer8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Manufacturing Company28%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Government4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company26%
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Insurance Company9%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise76%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise62%
    Buyer's Guide
    Application Security Testing (AST)
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST). Updated: April 2024.
    769,662 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Synopsys API Security Testing is ranked 29th in Application Security Testing (AST). Coverity is rated 7.8, while Synopsys API Security Testing is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys API Security Testing writes "Useful threat vectors, beneficial results, but implementation needed support". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Synopsys API Security Testing is most compared with Seeker, Fortify WebInspect, OWASP Zap and Acunetix.

    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.