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

Coverity Static vs Invicti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 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)
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (25th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (9th), API Security (9th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (5th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 5.1%, down from 8.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity Static5.1%
Invicti1.5%
Other93.4%
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.
Valavan Sivgalingam - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager, Security Engineering at ESS
Dynamic testing regularly identifies web vulnerabilities and has strong false positive confirmations
It has good false positive confirmations, confirmed issues identification, and proof of exploit-related features as part of it. We use Invicti for these things in our portfolios. The solution includes Proof-Based Scanning technology. Invicti is part of our SSDLC portfolio, and DAST dynamic testing is very important for our web applications and portfolios. For both the API endpoints and web applications, we do regular testing on a monthly basis for all our releases. Invicti does a good job. The only concern is on the performance side, but other than that, we find it really helpful in identifying web vulnerabilities. A full scan takes more time based on your website and other factors, but for us, it takes more than two to three days. The scan performance can be improved upon. When we check with them, they discuss proof-based scanning and related aspects. However, there could be intermittent results that could help us.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 product is easy to use."
"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."
"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"The tool as it is can be used for code quality improvement."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"It has a comprehensive resulting mechanism. It is a one-stop solution for all your security testing mechanisms."
"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."
"Invicti has done a commendable job with respect to ROI, and with respect to being a cost-effective solution and one of the market leaders as an effective solution for SAST and DAST, Invicti has performed very well."
"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."
"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment."
 

Cons

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."
"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."
"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."
"Coverity is not stable."
"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"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 support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"It is expensive."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."
"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."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"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."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"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."
"The price should be 20% lower"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

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 Business14
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
 

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 needs improvement with Invicti?
The main concern is on the performance side, but other than that, we find it really helpful in identifying web vulnerabilities. A full scan takes more time based on your website and other factors, ...
What is your primary use case for Invicti?
I use Invicti for web application testing and API testing. I want to confirm that I am still using Invicti and SonarQube.
 

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 Static vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.