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

Coverity vs Onapsis comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Coverity is praised for scalability, although some face cost issues; it efficiently serves both small and large organizations.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.2
Coverity enhances code quality with low false positives, security analysis, customizable options, and seamless integration into development workflows.
No sentiment score available
The most valuable feature of Coverity is its interprocedural analysis.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
3.7
Coverity users seek improved UI, better IDE integrations, reduced false positives, expanded language support, and enhanced reporting features.
No sentiment score available
The Coverity license fee is very high, making it tricky for individual developers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.5
Coverity is praised for its stability and reliability, with users rating its performance highly and noting minimal configurations needed.
No sentiment score available
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.0
Coverity's customer service is generally responsive and professional, but some users encounter communication delays and inconsistent expertise.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
3.0
Coverity's pricing is perceived as expensive and complex, despite providing multi-language access without code limitations.
No sentiment score available
Coverity is considered expensive compared to other tools like SonarQube, which is much cheaper.
 

Categories and Ranking

Coverity
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th)
Onapsis
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (39th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Coverity and Onapsis aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Coverity is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 8.4%, up 7.2% compared to last year.
Onapsis, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 0.1% mindshare, down 0.2% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers impressive reporting features with user-friendliness and high scalability
The solution can be easily setup but requires heavy integration due to the multiple types of port and programming languages involved. Comparing the resource requirements of the solution I would say it can be installed effortlessly. I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. A professional needs some pre-acquired knowledge to manage Coverity's deployment process, but the local solution partners provide support well enough for trouble-free deployment. The overall deployment process of Coverity took around two and a half hours in our organization. The deployment duration depends upon the operating system and resources including high-end RAM and CPU processors.
it_user19113 - PeerSpot reviewer
It checks for and reports vulnerabilities on all SAP systems at the OS, DB and SAP levels.
I really love how Onapsis X1 is able to check SAP for threats; the reporting was something I felt could be improved. It could be a little easier to use and to publish for consumption with a larger audience. Currently, it takes some background jobs and additional work to get them published. It was difficult to get interactive reports to the different levels of the business. I would have to download them and send them out, or save them on my SharePoint site and send out a weekly link. In the version of the product I was usingת I had to log into the X1 system directly to get to the reports. Reporting would be used by several different areas of the organizationת many of whom would be at the director and executive levels. It would not make sense to have them log directly into the tool to look at these reports. Add to this that there was only one ID that could be used to log in and view the reports. To solve this problemת I had to run all of the different reports; executive summary down to detailed analysis and then export them out to my security team SharePoint site. To automate this processת a batch script was created to run after the X1 analyzed the systems. The script would pull the reports and place them in the SharePoint site automatically, but it was a bit of a hassle to get set up.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
4%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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

No data available
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Sony, US Army, Westinghouse, AXA. Galicia, Daimler, Roche, Levi's, Siemens, ABB, KPMG, Mercardo Libre, Verizon, Bacardi, Adgas, Sicpa, Whirlpool, Leaseplan
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.