CodeSonar vs Coverity Static comparison

The compared CodeSecure and Black Duck solutions aren't in the same category. CodeSecure is ranked #28 in AS , and holds a 1.2% mindshare in the category. Black Duck is ranked #6 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 4.7% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of CodeSecure users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

2,608 Views
1,800 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,199 Views
8,567 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CodeSonar and Coverity Static based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Application Security Tools Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 880,844 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

CodeSonar

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (28th), Static Code Analysis (11th)

Coverity Static

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (6th)

Mindshare comparison

CodeSonar and Coverity Static aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. CodeSonar is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.2%, up 1.2% compared to last year.
Coverity Static, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 4.7% mindshare, down 8.0% since last year.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
CodeSonar	1.2%
SonarQube	17.9%
Checkmarx One	10.2%
Other	70.7%

Application Security Tools

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Coverity Static	4.7%
SonarQube	18.8%
Checkmarx One	10.4%
Other	66.1%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Mathieu ALBRESPY

Intigration Developer at ez-Wheel

Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand

This is the first time I've used this kind of software. It was the only one we could apply to analyze with MISRA rules. At my new company, I tried to use Klocwork. I tried to use it, just once so I cannot compare it exactly with CodeSonar. I also have a plugin for my Visual Studio and I try to make it work. It's not easy, however, I don't think that we have this kind of functionality with CodeSonar. It can do some incremental analysis. However, since this feature is also available on CodeSonar, it would be a good idea to have a plugin on Visual Studio just to have a quick analysis.

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

"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."

"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."

"It has been able to scale."

"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."

"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."

"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."

"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."

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

"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."

"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."

"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."

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

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

"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."

"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."

"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."

"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."

"It was expensive."

"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."

"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."

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

"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."

"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."

"The quality of the code needs improvement."

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

"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."

"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."

"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our organization purchased a license to use the solution."

"The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools."

"The solution's price depends on the number of licenses needed and the source code for the project."

"Pricing is a bit costly."

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

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"Coverity is quite expensive."

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

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

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

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

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

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

880,844 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

25%

University

11%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

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	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	2

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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 CodeSonar

Compared 33% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 7% of the time

Helix QAC vs CodeSonar

Compared 5% of the time

Klocwork vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Static Application Security Testing vs CodeSonar

Compared 3% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 32% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% 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

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

January 2026

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

January 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

No data available

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

GrammaTech enables organizations to develop software applications more efficiently, on-budget, and on-schedule by helping to eliminate harmful defects that can cause system failures, enable data breaches, and ultimately increase corporate liabilities in today’s connected world. GrammaTech is the developer of CodeSonar, the most powerful source and binary code analysis solution available today. Extraordinarily precise, CodeSonar finds, on average, 2 times more serious defects in software than other static analysis solutions. Designed for organizations with zero tolerance for defects and vulnerabilities in their applications, CodeSonar provides static analysis for applications where reliability and security are paramount - widely used by software developers in avionics, medical, automotive, industrial control, and other mission-critical applications. Some of GrammaTech's customers include Toyota, GE, Hyundai, Kawasaki, LG, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic, and Samsung.

CodeSecure

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

Viveris, Micrel Medical Devices, Olympus, SOFTEQ, SONY

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

880,844 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.