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 844,944 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 solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."

"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 most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."

"The product is easy to use."

"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."

More Coverity pros

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

"The API is exceptional."

"OWASP is quite matured in identifying the vulnerabilities."

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

"Simple and easy to learn and master."

"The solution has tightened our security."

"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."

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

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."

"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."

"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."

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."

"The setup takes very long."

"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."

"Coverity is not stable."

"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."

More Coverity cons

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

"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."

"It needs more robust reporting tools."

"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

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

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."

"As security evolves, we would like DevOps built into it. As of now, Zap does not provide this."

"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."

More OWASP Zap cons

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."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."

"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."

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

"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."

More Coverity pricing and cost advice

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"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."

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

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

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

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

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

844,944 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

844,944 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.