Coverity vs OWASP Zap comparison

Black Duck and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Black Duck is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while OWASP is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.7. Black Duck holds a 8.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 5.1% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

Coverity

Read 42 Coverity reviews

11,969 Views
8,281 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 39 OWASP Zap reviews

11,136 Views
6,104 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Coverity

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

OWASP Zap and Coverity are top contenders in application security testing. Users prefer OWASP Zap for its cost-effectiveness, while Coverity is valued for advanced features despite higher costs.

Features: OWASP Zap offers robust web application security, flexibility, and efficient vulnerability identification. Coverity provides sophisticated static analysis, extensive integration, and strength in large-scale project management.

Room for Improvement: OWASP Zap needs better scalability and integration. Coverity could simplify its setup and configuration. OWASP Zap would benefit from advanced features, whereas Coverity might become more user-friendly.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OWASP Zap has easy deployment and responsive support. Coverity offers detailed deployment but is complex in setup, compensating with effective technical issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: OWASP Zap is cost-effective with strong ROI for smaller projects. Coverity, although expensive, is seen as a valuable investment for larger security requirements.

To learn more, read our detailed Coverity vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Coverity vs. OWASP Zap

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,040 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

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

4th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

11th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 8.0%, up from 7.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 5.1%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain

Information Security Analyst at Banglalink

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.

Read full review

Amit Beniwal

Project Manager at Al Hassan LLC

Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support

There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

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 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."

"It is a scalable solution."

"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."

"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."

"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."

"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."

"Coverity is scalable."

More Coverity pros

"The interface is easy to use."

"The product helps users to scan and fix vulnerabilities in the pipeline."

"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"The solution has tightened our security."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."

"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."

"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."

"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."

"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."

"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."

More Coverity cons

"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."

"Deployment is somewhat complicated."

"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."

"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."

"There are too many false positives."

"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"It is expensive."

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"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 solution is affordable."

"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."

More Coverity pricing and cost advice

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."

"This solution is open source and free."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

More OWASP Zap 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

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

33%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Coverity?

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

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity

Compared 50% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

More Coverity Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs OWASP Zap

Compared 21% of the time

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 16% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 10% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 9% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Coverity

March 2025

Download Coverity product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2025

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis

No data available

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

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

Coverity vs. OWASP Zap

March 2025

Free Report: Coverity vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Coverity vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.