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

"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."
"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"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."
"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."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"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."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"​We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"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."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Coverity is very expensive."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"Check with your account manager."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
880,255 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.
880,255 professionals have used our research since 2012.