Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Coverity Static vs SonarQube comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 5, 2025

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

Coverity Static
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SonarQube
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
134
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (1st), Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.7%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube is 18.8%, down from 26.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SonarQube18.8%
Coverity Static4.7%
Other76.5%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

KT
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.
KH
Sr Software Engineering Supervisor at Mozarc Medical
Gains control over rule customization and achieves reliable vulnerability assessment
The deployment process took me about 2 or 3 hours to deploy SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube), although I do not remember exactly since it was done about 2 years back. Currently, about 10 of my developers are using SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) in my company. I do not have plans to increase the usage of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) in the future as there will not be any requirement to increase. I am a senior software engineer and supervisor at Mozark Medical. My corporate email address is karthik.k.a.r.t.h.i.k.h.a.r.p.a.n.h.a.l.l.i@mozarkmedical.com. Overall, I would rate SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as a 9 out of 10.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The product is easy to use."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"I like that it has a better dashboard compared to Clockwork. It's also stable."
"Some of the most valuable features have been the latest up-to-date of the OWASP, the monitoring, the reporting, and the ease of use with the IDE plugins, in terms of integration."
"The depth features I have found most valuable. You receive a quick comprehensive comparison overview regarding the current release and the last release and what type of depths dependency or duplication should be used. This is going to help you to make a more readable code and have more flexibility for the engineers to understand how things should work when they do not know."
"It helps our developers work more efficiently as we can identify things in a code prior to it being pushed to where it needs to go."
"The most valuable features of SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) include code inspection, addressing technical debt, and identifying security vulnerabilities."
"The solution's user interface is very user-friendly."
"SonarQube is scalable. My company has 50 users."
 

Cons

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."
"The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"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 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."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"A better design of the interface and add some new rules."
"We called support and complained but have not received any information as we use the free version. We had to fix it on our own and could not escalate it to the tool's developer."
"The solution could improve by providing more advanced technologies."
"I think the code security can be improved."
"It should be user-friendly."
"SonarQube Cloud could improve its vulnerability detection compared to Veracode."
"It requires advanced heuristics to recognize more complex constructs that could be disregarded as issues."
"There is need for support for the additional languages and ease of use in adding new rules for detecting issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 quite expensive."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"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."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"It's a bit expensive for us. The currency rate of the dollar is a problem but it may be fine for other countries."
"This product is open source and very convenient."
"The beauty of this solution is the free open-source version is capable enough in doing pretty much what an enterprise-level version can do."
"It's an open-source product."
"People can try the free licenses and later can seek buying plugins/support, etc. once they started liking it."
"The product’s price is lower than Veracode’s price."
"A low cost long-term solution for non-critical situations."
"The price point on SonarQube is good."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise79
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How does Snyk compare with SonarQube?
Snyk does a great job identifying and reducing vulnerabilities. This solution is fully automated and monitors 24/7 to find any issues reported on the internet. It will store dependencies that you a...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Sonar, SonarQube Cloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. SonarQube and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.