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

Coverity Static vs Kiuwan 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)
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Kiuwan
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
26th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (28th)
 

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 Kiuwan is 1.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Coverity Static3.8%
Kiuwan1.1%
Other95.1%
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.
Mustufa Bhavnagarwala - PeerSpot reviewer
CyberRisk Solution Advisor at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement
Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"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 provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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 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 is easy to use."
"​We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"I like that I can scan the code without sending it to the Kiuwan cloud. I can do it locally on my device. When the local analyzer finishes, the results display on the dashboard in the cloud. It's essential for security purposes to be able to scan my code locally."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
 

Cons

"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The solution is affordable."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"It is expensive."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"Check with your account manager."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
884,108 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
4%
University
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
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 Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. Kiuwan and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,108 professionals have used our research since 2012.