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

Coverity vs Invicti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 8.0%, up from 7.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
Proactive scanning measures and realistic audit recommendations enhance development focus
Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment. This feature helps us focus on priorities and prioritize the development team's effort, integrating seamlessly with DevOps to facilitate proactive scans of environments. Invicti also provides audit recommendations that are quite realistic, making it easy to discuss plans with developers.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"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 gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"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."
"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."
"The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan."
"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"I am impressed with Invictus’ proof-based scanning. The solution has reduced the incidence of false positive vulnerabilities. It has helped us reduce our time and focus on vulnerabilities."
"The solution generates reports automatically and quickly."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
 

Cons

"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"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."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The solution could use more rules."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."
"The scanning time, complexity, and authentication features of Invicti could be improved."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is expensive."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"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."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"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’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
33%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
4%
Educational Organization
52%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
What needs improvement with Invicti?
Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement. We need enterprise-level information instead of repo-level details. Unlike Appiro, Invicti does not provide portfolio-level insights into vulnerab...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Netsparker
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.