We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"This solution is easy to use."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"Checkmarx could improve the speed of the scans."
"I would like the product to include more debugging and developed tools. It needs to also add enhancements on the coding side."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"Coverity is not stable."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Mend.io, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover. See our Checkmarx One vs. Coverity 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.
