No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Coverity Static vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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)
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Container Security (8th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 3.8%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.8%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.8%
Coverity Static3.8%
Other91.4%
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.
reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration
Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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 gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"Ease of development teams to adopt."
"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its interprocedural analysis, which is advantageous because it compares favorably with other tools in terms of security and code analysis."
"Veracode Fix has affected our time to remediate security flaws in cases where we've been able to use it correctly because the proposals were on point, and it's been great."
"Veracode allows us to easily summarize issues and provide quick, actionable insights."
"Veracode has impacted our overall security posture because we are from a security background."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"The ease of integration with Bitbucket pipelines and Git pipelines is vital for us."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"Ours is a Java-based application and Veracode can detect vulnerabilities in both Angular, which is used for the UI, and also in the backend code, which includes APIs and microservices."
"The most valuable feature is the remediation consulting that they give. I feel like any vendor can identify the flaws but fixing the flaws is what is most important. Being able to have those consultation calls, schedule them in the platform, and have that discussion with an applications expert, that process scales well and that is what has allowed a lot more reduction of risk to happen."
 

Cons

"Coverity is not stable but it is sufficient for our organization's requirements."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"The solution needs to improve its false positives."
"The setup takes very long."
"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced."
"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."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"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."
"CA still has some difficulties integrating the Veracode team in their support services."
"We have encountered occasional issues with scalability."
"In the next release, I would like a proper way of packaging files for scanning and the packing of IOS apps and API Dynamic scan methodology."
"I've seen slightly better static analysis tools from other companies when it comes to speed and ease of use."
"It's pretty efficient, but sometimes the static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives."
"They need to have a plug-in, a better integration with the development environment."
"The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted."
"I do expect large applications with millions of lines of code to take a while, but it would be nice if there was a possibility to be able to have a baseline initial scan. I know that Veracode touts that there are Pipeline Scans that are supposed to take 90 seconds or less, and we've tried to do that ourselves with our ERP application. However, it actually times out after two hours of scanning. If the static scan itself or another option to run a lower tier scan can be integrated earlier on into our SDLC, it would be great. Right now, it takes so long that we usually leave it till a bit later in the cycle, whereas if it ran faster, we could push it to the time when a developer will be checking in code. That would make us feel a lot more confident that we'd be able to catch things almost instantaneously."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool was fairly priced."
"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."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"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."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is on the higher side."
"It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool."
"Its pricing is fair."
"I believe the price is fair according to market standards."
"We're very comfortable with their model. We think they're a good value. We worked very closely with Veracode on understanding their license model, understanding what comprises the fee and what does not. With their assistance in design, we decomposed our application in a way where we are scanning a very significant amount of code without wasting their capacity and generating redundant reported issues. You scan in profiles, per se. And we work with them, in their offices, to design the most effective approach. So the advice I would have for customers is, you can get up and live fast, but work closely with Veracode to refine the method you use for scanning and the way you compile the applications. There's a concept called entry-point scanning, and that's probably not used well by the rest of their customers. We see our licensing as a good value because we leverage it heavily."
"I think it's a great value. It's at a price point that a small company like mine can afford to use versus, if it was too exorbitant, I wouldn't be able to use this product. The cost of the license is small in comparison to the value it brings"
"The pricing is fair."
"It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it only for 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
4%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

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 Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
 

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 needs improvement with Coverity?
The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but they take a longer time to respond. The core support is not straightforward, an...
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...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.