Checkmarx One vs Coverity Static comparison

Checkmarx and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Checkmarx is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while Black Duck is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0. Checkmarx holds a 10.3% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 4.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

17,957 Views
14,186 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,199 Views
8,567 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

Checkmarx One and Coverity Static are leading static code analysis tools. Checkmarx One has the upper hand in pricing flexibility and a strong return on investment.

Features: Checkmarx One features scanning uncompiled code, Best Fix Location, and incremental scanning, with broad integrations and language support, emphasizing ease of use and vulnerability management. Coverity Static boasts lower false positive rates, comprehensive scanning capabilities, deep CI/CD integration, and advanced interprocedural analysis.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One could reduce false positives, enhance file reference understanding, and expand language support. Licensing and SAP HANA integration are noted improvement areas. Coverity Static faces criticism for high cost, complexity, and a user-friendly interface need, alongside a call for better customization options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both offer on-premises and hybrid cloud deployments, with Checkmarx One providing public cloud integration options, adding flexibility and scalability. Checkmarx One's customer service is praised for interaction and support, whereas Coverity Static users report slower response times and suggest support efficiency improvements.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One's relatively high price is justified by robust features and flexible pricing. Coverity Static is seen as expensive, challenging affordability for smaller organizations. Both tools significantly reduce manual code reviews and enhance application security, providing substantial ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. Coverity Static Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Coverity Static

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,346 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

Checkmarx One

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

3rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (3rd), Vulnerability Management (16th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (8th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

6th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 10.3%, down from 11.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.2%, down from 7.9% 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 (%)
Checkmarx One	10.3%
Coverity Static	4.2%
Other	85.5%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution

Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance

Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.

Read full review

Kasiraja Thangapandian

Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation

Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist

We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.

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

"By using the automated testing in Checkmarx One, we have saved around one or two days in a full week of our team because we have a lot of code to do with seven markets."

"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."

"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."

"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."

"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."

"It is a stable product."

"Checkmarx offers many valuable features, including Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), Infrastructure as Code (IAC), Supply Chain Security, and API Security."

"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."

More Checkmarx One pros

"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."

"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."

"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

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

"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."

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

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."

"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."

"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."

"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."

"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."

"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."

"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."

"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."

More Checkmarx One cons

"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."

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

"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."

"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."

"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."

"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."

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."

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

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is costly."

"It is a good product but a little overpriced."

"I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone."

"The price of Checkmarx could be reduced to match their competitors, it is expensive."

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies."

"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."

"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"The solution is affordable."

"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."

"It is expensive."

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

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

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

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

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

881,346 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

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

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?

I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.

See all answers

What do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?

Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...

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

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 48% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 5% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Fortify Application Defender vs Checkmarx One

Compared 1% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 29% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Snyk vs Coverity Static

Compared 3% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

January 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

January 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

No data available

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

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

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Coverity Static

February 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Coverity Static

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Coverity Static and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,346 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One 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.