Coverity Static vs Invicti comparison

Read 31 Invicti reviews

3,717 Views
2,379 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

Invicti and Coverity Static are security testing products. Invicti has the upper hand in pricing and support, while Coverity Static is superior in features.

Features: Invicti offers automated vulnerability detection, integration with other security tools, and comprehensive reporting. Coverity Static provides deep source code analysis, effective bug tracking, and handles large codebases efficiently.

Room for Improvement: Invicti could enhance its performance speed, reduce scan times, and improve integration flexibility. Coverity Static may benefit from simplifying its user interface, reducing setup complexity, and enhancing documentation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Invicti features a straightforward deployment with strong support services for rapid integration. Coverity Static, while offering reliable technical support, may involve a steeper learning curve and detailed customization during setup.

Pricing and ROI: Invicti is known for its cost-effective pricing, providing strong ROI through efficient detection. Coverity Static requires a higher initial investment but offers long-term ROI through its extensive security insights.

To learn more, read our detailed Coverity Static vs. Invicti Report (Updated: March 2026).

Coverity Static vs. Invicti

Download the complete report

Helped 884,266 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

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

8th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

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

Ranking in other categories

Container Security (25th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (8th), API Security (8th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 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 Invicti is 1.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Coverity Static	3.8%
Invicti	1.5%
Other	94.7%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Kasiraja Thangapandian

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.

Read full review

Valavan Sivgalingam

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.

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

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

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

"It has the lowest false positives."

"The tool as it is can be used for code quality improvement."

"It's very stable."

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."

"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."

More Coverity Static pros

"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."

"The scanner is light on the network and does not impact the network when scans are running."

"Netsparker provides a more interactive interface that is more appealing."

"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."

"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."

"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."

"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."

"Its ability to crawl a web application is quite different than another similar scanner."

More Invicti pros

Cons

"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."

"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."

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

"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."

"The setup takes very long."

"The product lacks sufficient customization options."

"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."

"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."

More Coverity Static cons

"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."

"The scanner itself should be improved because it is a little bit slow."

"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."

"They need to improve their support in the documentation. Their support mechanism is missing. Their responsiveness, technical staff, and these types of things need to be improved, and comprehensive documentation is required. They should have good self-service portal enhancement"

"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."

"I think that it freezes without any specific reason at times. This needs to be looked into."

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."

More Invicti cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"Coverity is very expensive."

"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."

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."

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

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

"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."

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."

"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."

"The price should be 20% lower"

"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."

More Invicti pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,266 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

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...

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?

The setup cost is pretty competitive. For example, if you want to talk about the SAST license, it comes to about $150 or sometimes less than $100, depending on the conversion or the number of licen...

What needs improvement with Invicti?

At this time, there is nothing that comes to mind. However, most of the products in the market are pretty much neck-to-neck competitors. Speaking about it, there are a couple of factors which they ...

What is your primary use case for Invicti?

I have worked on a couple of products, specifically in web application security. I have worked on Invicti, and with respect to PAM, I have worked with BeyondTrust. I have not worked specifically fo...

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Comparisons

Compared 24% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 7% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Acunetix vs Invicti

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs Invicti

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube vs Invicti

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Invicti

Compared 5% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Enterprise Edition vs Invicti

Compared 2% of the time

More Invicti Competitors

Product Reports

Coverity Static

Download Coverity Static product report

Download Invicti product report

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis

Netsparker

Overview

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

Invicti helps DevSecOps teams automate security tasks and save hundreds of hours each month by identifying web vulnerabilities that matter. Combining dynamic with interactive testing (DAST + IAST) and software composition analysis (SCA), Invicti scans every corner of an app to find what other tools miss with 99.98% accuracy, delivering on the promise of Zero Noise AppSec. Invicti helps discover all web assets — even ones that are lost, forgotten, or created by rogue departments. With an array of out-of-the-box integrations, DevSecOps teams can get ahead of their workloads to hit critical deadlines, improve processes, and communicate more effectively while reducing risk and hitting the ROI goals.

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank

Coverity Static vs. Invicti