Acunetix vs Coverity Static comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.4, while Black Duck is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 3.1% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 6.0% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,850 Views
3,803 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

11,349 Views
9,647 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

Acunetix and Coverity Static compete in the application security and code analysis sector, with Coverity Static seeming to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive code quality checks and strong integration capabilities.

Features: Acunetix offers ease of use with interactive application security testing and robust reporting outputs. It boasts scalability as both a standalone and integrated solution, and it features a low false positive rate. Coverity Static excels in handling comprehensive code quality checks with a focus on security analysis. It offers extensibility through integrations with popular CI/CD tools and has a low false positive rate.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix needs to enhance its IAS tool, provide more robust authentication and authorization settings, and reduce false positives in scans. It also faces challenges with licensing restrictions and high bandwidth consumption during scans. Coverity Static could improve its user interface and provide better support for customizing rules and managing false positives. There is a significant demand for better integration with dynamic scans and additional IDE support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix offers flexible deployment options, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, but its support quality is inconsistent. Some users experience excellent responsiveness, while others encounter delays. Coverity Static has flexible deployment as well, with mixed support experiences. Users appreciate its one-on-one support meetings and fast response times, though reliance on resellers can slow issue resolutions.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix faces criticism for significant price increases, causing dissatisfaction among some customers. Despite its initial value through add-on features, many find ROI in improved security processes. Coverity Static, while expensive, is priced based on user count. This could be costly for large teams, but its robust features and comprehensive development environment support justify the investment with significant long-term ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Coverity Static Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 871,408 peers since 2012

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

Acunetix

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (23rd), DevSecOps (6th)

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

5th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.1%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 6.0%, down from 7.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Coverity Static	6.0%
Acunetix	3.1%
Other	90.9%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

Jaile Sebes

Senior Software Architect at Siemens Industry

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.…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."

"The product is really easy to use."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."

"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."

"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."

"I haven't seen reporting of that level in any other tool."

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

More Acunetix pros

"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."

"What I find most effective about Coverity is its low rate of false positives. I've seen other platforms with many false positives, but with Coverity, most vulnerabilities it identifies are genuine. This allows me to focus on real issues."

"The product is easy to use."

"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."

"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."

"Considering the analysis part and the benchmarking process involving the product that my company carried out, the solution is good for finding bugs and violations"

"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."

"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"Currently only supports web scanning."

"I had some issues with the JSON parameters where it found some strange vulnerabilities, but it didn't alert the person using it or me about these vulnerabilities, e.g., an error for SQL injection."

"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."

"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."

"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."

"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."

More Acunetix cons

"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."

"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."

"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."

"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."

"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."

"The solution could use more rules."

"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"The solution is expensive."

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."

"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."

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."

"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."

"It is expensive."

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

871,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner is automated scanning and detection of security vulnerabilities in web applications, websites, and APIs.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Coverity?

The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 16% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 9% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity Static

Compared 37% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

October 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

October 2025

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

Invicti

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 more than 20 languages and 200 frameworks and templates.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

September 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Coverity Static and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

871,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. Coverity Static report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.