Acunetix vs Coverity Static comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.4, while Black Duck is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 3.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 5.4% 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

5,895 Views
3,832 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,864 Views
9,126 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: November 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

November 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 873,003 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)

11th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (14th), Vulnerability Management (25th), 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 November 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.0%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 5.4%, down from 7.5% 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	5.4%
Acunetix	3.0%
Other	91.6%

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."

"Acunetix has an awesome crawler. It gives a referral site map of near targets and also goes really deep to find all the inputs without issues. This was valuable because it helped me find some files or directories, like web admin panels without authentication, which were hidden."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."

"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."

"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."

"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

More Acunetix pros

"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."

"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 tool as it is can be used for code quality improvement."

"This solution is easy to use."

"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."

"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."

"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"The solution's pricing could be better."

"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."

"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."

"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."

"There was an issue related to updates from the internet."

"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."

"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."

"It is difficult to create a proxy connection."

More Acunetix cons

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."

"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."

"We'd like it to be faster."

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

"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."

"The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through."

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."

"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The solution is expensive."

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

"The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."

"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."

"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

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

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

"It is expensive."

"Coverity is very expensive."

"Coverity is quite 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."

"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."

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

873,003 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

Healthcare Company

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 8% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity Static

Compared 35% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

November 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

November 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

November 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

873,003 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.