CodeSonar vs Coverity comparison

The compared CodeSecure and Black Duck solutions aren't in the same category. CodeSecure is ranked #34 in AS , with an average rating of 7.0, and holds a 1.4% mindshare in the category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 8.0% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of CodeSecure users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

CodeSonar

Read 7 CodeSonar reviews

1,855 Views
1,189 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Coverity

Read 42 Coverity reviews

11,969 Views
8,281 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

CodeSonar

Coverity

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

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

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

To learn more, read our detailed Application Security Tools Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,040 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 (34th), Static Code Analysis (8th)

Coverity

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th)

Mindshare comparison

CodeSonar and Coverity aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. CodeSonar is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.4%, up 0.9% compared to last year.
Coverity, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 8.0% mindshare, up 7.0% since last year.

Application Security Tools

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

Md. Shahriar Hussain

Information Security Analyst at Banglalink

Offers impressive reporting features with user-friendliness and high scalability

The solution can be easily setup but requires heavy integration due to the multiple types of port and programming languages involved. Comparing the resource requirements of the solution I would say it can be installed effortlessly. I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. A professional needs some pre-acquired knowledge to manage Coverity's deployment process, but the local solution partners provide support well enough for trouble-free deployment. The overall deployment process of Coverity took around two and a half hours in our organization. The deployment duration depends upon the operating system and resources including high-end RAM and CPU processors.

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

"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."

"It has been able to scale."

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

"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."

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

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

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

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

"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."

"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."

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

"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."

"Coverity is scalable."

More Coverity pros

Cons

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

"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."

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

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

"It was expensive."

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

"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."

"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 solution could use more rules."

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."

"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."

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

"Coverity is not stable."

"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

More Coverity cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"Pricing is a bit costly."

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

"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."

"The solution is affordable."

"Coverity is very expensive."

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

"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."

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

More Coverity 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

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

26%

Computer Software Company

12%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

33%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CodeSonar?

CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CodeSonar?

The application’s pricing is high compared to other tools. I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with CodeSonar?

Our license model allows one user per license. Currently, we have limitations for VPN profiles. We can’t share the key with other users. There could be a shared licensing model for the users. It wi...

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 Server (formerly SonarQube) vs CodeSonar

Compared 60% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs CodeSonar

Compared 9% of the time

Klocwork vs CodeSonar

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Static Code Analyzer vs CodeSonar

Compared 2% of the time

Axivion Static Code Analysis vs CodeSonar

Compared 2% of the time

More CodeSonar Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity

Compared 50% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

Snyk vs Coverity

Compared 4% of the time

More Coverity Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Security Tools

March 2025

Download CodeSonar product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity

March 2025

Download Coverity 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

March 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,040 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.