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

Top 10 Coverity Static Alternatives

Vendor: Black Duck
3.9 out of 5
Leave a review

Top Coverity Static Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Coverity Static based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube), GitLab, and Snyk. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Coverity Static surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive code analysis, identifying security vulnerabilities early in the development cycle, and integrating seamlessly with diverse environments to enhance productivity and software quality without sacrificing performance.

Black Duck Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Black Duck, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)
4.0 out of 5
SonarQube Server impresses with language support, Eclipse integration, and code metrics, attracting those needing custom rules. In comparison, Coverity Static excels in security, with low false positives and effective memory leak detection, ideal for security-critical environments despite higher costs.
Download Coverity Static vs. SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Report
SonarQube Server features minimal setup costs, while Coverity Static requires a higher initial investment. SonarQube prioritizes affordability in installation, contrasting with Coverity's more substantial initial financial commitment.
View comparison
Pricing
SonarQube Server features minimal setup costs, while Coverity Static requires a higher initial investment. SonarQube prioritizes affordability in installation, contrasting with Coverity's more substantial initial financial commitment.
Coverity Static Logo
GitLab
4.2 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
GitLab
4.2 out of 5
Coverity Static stands out with excellent security and CI/CD integration. In comparison, GitLab offers extensive CI/CD functionality and team collaboration features. A tech buyer might choose Coverity Static for security or GitLab for its collaborative and deployment capabilities.
Download Coverity Static vs. GitLab Report
Coverity Static's setup cost is higher, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while GitLab offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it accessible for smaller teams.
View comparison
Pricing
Coverity Static's setup cost is higher, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while GitLab offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it accessible for smaller teams.
Coverity Static Logo
Snyk
4.0 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Snyk
4.0 out of 5
Coverity Static excels in low false positive rates and deep scanning; a tech buyer might favor it for rigorous code analysis. In comparison, Snyk stands out for easy integration and real-time updates, appealing to those prioritizing ease of use and security features.
Download Coverity Static vs. Snyk Report
Coverity Static has higher initial setup costs compared to Snyk, which offers a more cost-effective setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Coverity Static has higher initial setup costs compared to Snyk, which offers a more cost-effective setup.
Coverity Static Logo
Checkmarx One
3.8 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Checkmarx One
3.8 out of 5
Checkmarx One excels in flexibility, language support, and intuitive deployment, catering to diverse security needs with ease. In comparison, Coverity Static delivers meticulous code analysis and a low false positive rate, making it ideal for detailed security insights in C++ and C# environments.
Download Checkmarx One vs. Coverity Static Report
Checkmarx One has a low setup cost, making it affordable for smaller teams, while Coverity Static incurs a higher setup expense, often justified by enterprise-grade features.
View comparison
Pricing
Checkmarx One has a low setup cost, making it affordable for smaller teams, while Coverity Static incurs a higher setup expense, often justified by enterprise-grade features.
Coverity Static Logo
Veracode
4.0 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Veracode
4.0 out of 5
Veracode offers comprehensive features with static and dynamic scanning, perfect for integrating into modern software development. In comparison, Coverity Static focuses on static code analysis and security detection, appealing to those needing robust interprocedural analysis and standards compliance for on-premises environments.
Download Coverity Static vs. Veracode Report
Veracode's setup cost is generally lower than Coverity Static's, making it a cost-effective choice for budget-conscious users. Coverity Static, however, offers a comprehensive feature set that may justify its higher initial expense.
View comparison
Pricing
Veracode's setup cost is generally lower than Coverity Static's, making it a cost-effective choice for budget-conscious users. Coverity Static, however, offers a comprehensive feature set that may justify its higher initial expense.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
OpenText Core Application Security
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Core Application Security offers strong compliance solutions and dynamic analysis ideal for comprehensive security management. In comparison, Coverity Static is valued for its advanced static analysis and seamless tool integration, making it suitable for complex environments requiring detailed code review.
Download Coverity Static vs. OpenText Core Application Security Report
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while Coverity Static requires a higher initial investment. These pricing differences highlight OpenText's emphasis on quick deployment, contrasting with Coverity Static's focus on a comprehensive integration approach.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Core Application Security has a straightforward setup cost, while Coverity Static requires a higher initial investment. These pricing differences highlight OpenText's emphasis on quick deployment, contrasting with Coverity Static's focus on a comprehensive integration approach.
Coverity Static Logo
OWASP Zap
3.8 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
OWASP Zap
3.8 out of 5
OWASP Zap appeals to budget-conscious developers with quick setup and community support. In comparison, Coverity Static provides comprehensive code analysis and robust support, ideal for enterprises needing thorough inspections. Coverity's higher initial costs offer long-term benefits for projects requiring deep code scrutiny.
Download Coverity Static vs. OWASP Zap Report
OWASP Zap offers a more budget-friendly setup, while Coverity Static incurs a higher initial cost, highlighting a significant difference in pricing strategy between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OWASP Zap offers a more budget-friendly setup, while Coverity Static incurs a higher initial cost, highlighting a significant difference in pricing strategy between the two solutions.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud)
4.1 out of 5
Coverity Static offers comprehensive security analysis and ease of use, appealing to organizations needing in-depth scanning. In comparison, SonarQube Cloud excels in continuous code analysis and affordability, making it suitable for small to mid-sized companies seeking seamless CI/CD integration.
Download Coverity Static vs. SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) Report
Coverity Static incurs an initial setup cost that can be higher compared to SonarQube Cloud, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Coverity Static incurs an initial setup cost that can be higher compared to SonarQube Cloud, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions.
Coverity Static Logo
Acunetix
3.9 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Acunetix
3.9 out of 5
Acunetix excels in web application security with its IAST module, ideal for vulnerability detection. In comparison, Coverity Static offers deep code analysis across languages, benefiting C++ and C# users, appealing to those needing extensive static code reviews.
Download Acunetix vs. Coverity Static Report
Acunetix setup costs are transparently priced, while Coverity Static involves higher setup fees.
View comparison
Pricing
Acunetix setup costs are transparently priced, while Coverity Static involves higher setup fees.
Coverity Static Logo
HCL AppScan
3.9 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
HCL AppScan
3.9 out of 5
HCL AppScan is noted for its fast scanning times and seamless development integration, benefiting security-focused teams. In comparison, Coverity Static offers robust code analysis for languages like C++ and C#. Its deep scanning features and CI/CD integration make it suitable for detailed code reviews.
Download Coverity Static vs. HCL AppScan Report
HCL AppScan features a straightforward setup cost structure that appeals to organizations seeking explicit upfront expenses, while Coverity Static tends to have variable setup costs offering greater flexibility depending on specific requirements and scale.
View comparison
Pricing
HCL AppScan features a straightforward setup cost structure that appeals to organizations seeking explicit upfront expenses, while Coverity Static tends to have variable setup costs offering greater flexibility depending on specific requirements and scale.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional
4.3 out of 5
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional offers comprehensive penetration testing features with versatile plug-ins and robust manual tools. In comparison, Coverity Static excels in early code vulnerability identification, especially for C++ and C#. Burp Suite focuses on manual testing, while Coverity emphasizes development integration.
Download Coverity Static vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Report
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional requires an upfront investment, while Coverity Static may involve variable setup costs. The cost structure difference can impact budgeting decisions for organizations considering implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional requires an upfront investment, while Coverity Static may involve variable setup costs. The cost structure difference can impact budgeting decisions for organizations considering implementation.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
Qualys Web Application Scanning
3.8 out of 5
Qualys Web Application Scanning offers ease of use and integration with CI/CD tools. In comparison, Coverity Static excels in static code analysis with in-depth insights. Tech buyers might favor Qualys for competitive bulk pricing and cloud deployment, while Coverity appeals with comprehensive code analysis capabilities.
Download Coverity Static vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning Report
Qualys Web Application Scanning involves a moderate initial setup cost, while Coverity Static requires no setup fees. This highlights a distinct cost difference between the two solutions in terms of upfront expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Qualys Web Application Scanning involves a moderate initial setup cost, while Coverity Static requires no setup fees. This highlights a distinct cost difference between the two solutions in terms of upfront expenses.
Coverity Static Logo
Klocwork
4.0 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Klocwork
4.0 out of 5
Klocwork offers competitive pricing, CI/CD integration, and cybersecurity features, enhancing ROI. In comparison, Coverity Static provides extensive language support and deep scanning, appealing to those seeking advanced analysis despite higher costs. Each solution addresses different development needs and budget considerations.
Download Coverity Static vs. Klocwork Report
Klocwork setup cost is lower than Coverity Static, making it a more cost-effective option for initial setup. Coverity Static, though higher in setup cost, offers robust features that may justify the investment for some users.
View comparison
Pricing
Klocwork setup cost is lower than Coverity Static, making it a more cost-effective option for initial setup. Coverity Static, though higher in setup cost, offers robust features that may justify the investment for some users.
Coverity Static Logo
Semgrep
4.0 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Semgrep
4.0 out of 5
Coverity Static excels in deep code analysis and extensive integrations, supporting diverse languages. In comparison, Semgrep impresses with speed and flexibility, allowing custom rule creation. Coverity's comprehensive support appeals to larger teams, while Semgrep's affordable price suits budget-conscious buyers seeking agility.
Coverity Static has a substantial setup cost, contrasting Semgrep's minimal initial setup expense, highlighting a key financial difference.
View comparison
Pricing
Coverity Static has a substantial setup cost, contrasting Semgrep's minimal initial setup expense, highlighting a key financial difference.
Coverity Static Logo
Invicti
4.1 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Invicti
4.1 out of 5
Invicti offers dynamic analysis for real-time environments with accessible pricing and ease of deployment. In comparison, Coverity Static provides extensive code coverage and integrates with development tools, appealing to those seeking in-depth analysis despite higher upfront costs and initial setup.
Download Coverity Static vs. Invicti Report
Invicti offers a straightforward setup cost, making it easier to budget for implementation, while Coverity Static's setup costs are driven by enterprise-level features, resulting in a potentially higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Invicti offers a straightforward setup cost, making it easier to budget for implementation, while Coverity Static's setup costs are driven by enterprise-level features, resulting in a potentially higher initial investment.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
GitGuardian Platform
4.4 out of 5
Coverity Static offers low false positive rates and comprehensive CI/CD integrations, ideal for enhancing coding standards and compliance. In comparison, GitGuardian excels with real-time secrets detection and quick incident management, benefiting teams through speed and efficiency in handling sensitive data issues.
Download Coverity Static vs. GitGuardian Platform Report
Coverity Static includes a straightforward setup cost, providing clarity for budgeting, while GitGuardian Platform’s setup cost reflects its enhanced security features, highlighting their distinct positioning in terms of implementation fees.
View comparison
Pricing
Coverity Static includes a straightforward setup cost, providing clarity for budgeting, while GitGuardian Platform’s setup cost reflects its enhanced security features, highlighting their distinct positioning in terms of implementation fees.
Coverity Static Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Parasoft SOAtest
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in constructing functional test scenarios with ease and integrates seamlessly with data-driven testing. In comparison, Coverity Static focuses on identifying software defects, offering robust code security and compliance features, making it ideal for security-focused testing scenarios.
Download Coverity Static vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest involves an initial setup cost that users find reasonable, while Coverity Static requires a significant investment, which may deter budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest involves an initial setup cost that users find reasonable, while Coverity Static requires a significant investment, which may deter budget-conscious users.
Coverity Static Logo
Kiuwan
4.3 out of 5
Coverity Static Logo
Kiuwan
4.3 out of 5
Kiuwan offers lower costs and quick scanning times, making it ideal for fast-paced environments. In comparison, Coverity's robust features and extensive language support cater to larger teams despite higher pricing. Integration flexibility makes both solutions appealing for diverse tech needs.
Download Coverity Static vs. Kiuwan Report
Kiuwan requires a straightforward setup cost, contrasting with Coverity Static, which may involve additional expenses. When evaluating these solutions, each presents unique considerations in their pricing setup, impacting the overall implementation budget.
View comparison
Pricing
Kiuwan requires a straightforward setup cost, contrasting with Coverity Static, which may involve additional expenses. When evaluating these solutions, each presents unique considerations in their pricing setup, impacting the overall implementation budget.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
GitHub Code Scanning
4.3 out of 5
Coverity Static offers robust pricing for enterprise needs with strong multi-language support. In comparison, GitHub Code Scanning integrates seamlessly into GitHub, offering advanced features with cost-effective deployment, appealing particularly to smaller teams seeking swift returns on investment.
Download Coverity Static vs. GitHub Code Scanning Report
Coverity Static incurs a higher setup cost compared to GitHub Code Scanning, highlighting a significant price difference in initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Coverity Static incurs a higher setup cost compared to GitHub Code Scanning, highlighting a significant price difference in initial investment.
Coverity Static Logo
Coverity Static Logo
Contrast Security Assess
4.4 out of 5
Contrast Security Assess offers real-time vulnerability detection with seamless integration for rapid deployment and competitive pricing. In comparison, Coverity Static provides extensive code coverage and detailed defect identification, appealing to those seeking comprehensive analysis and long-term code reliability in complex systems.
Download Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static Report
Contrast Security Assess has a straightforward setup, while Coverity Static users mention a more complex implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
Contrast Security Assess has a straightforward setup, while Coverity Static users mention a more complex implementation.

Related categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Application Security Tools
Software Development Analytics