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)
6th
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)
25th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.7%, 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) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity Static4.7%
Kiuwan1.1%
Other94.2%
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.
Anshul Anshul - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Manager at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Efficient and accurate scanning, and detailed analysis
In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further. Another issue I've encountered is that Kiuwan only looks at the version of components and doesn't take into account any workaround fixes that have been implemented at the code level. This can result in false positives being reported. Additionally, these issues are in the "insights" tab and not in the code base security aspect. Lastly, when muting findings that are false positives, there should be an option to see the only available at the code level rather than at the organization level because it can lead to missing vulnerabilities if they are muted at the org level. An additional feature that would be helpful is the ability to easily download reports from Kiuwan. Specifically, in the "insights" tab, we have been encountering an error when trying to download the PDF report. We are able to download the code-based security report, but not the insights report. This has been an ongoing issue for the past couple of months and would be beneficial if it could be resolved. My main recommendation would be to address the issues with downloading reports that we have been experiencing. Additionally, it would be helpful if Kiuwan could support a wider range of programming languages, as there are currently some that are not compatible with the tool. If the code of a particular application falls under the category which is not compatible with Kiuwan, then it will not be able to scan it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"Considering the analysis part and the benchmarking process involving the product that my company carried out, the solution is good for finding bugs and violations"
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"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."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
 

Cons

"There should be additional IDE support."
"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."
"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"The solution could use more rules."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"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 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."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"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."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"Check with your account manager."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"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."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
880,954 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%
Computer Software Company
13%
University
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Consumer Goods Company
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 do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
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: December 2025.
880,954 professionals have used our research since 2012.