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 88% 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 40 OWASP Zap reviews

11,136 Views
6,104 Comparison Views

88% 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: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Coverity vs. OWASP Zap

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 848,716 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

7.3

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

"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."

"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."

"The product is easy to use."

"What I find most effective about Coverity is its low rate of false positives. I've seen other platforms with many false positives, but with Coverity, most vulnerabilities it identifies are genuine. This allows me to focus on real issues."

"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."

"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."

"This solution is easy to use."

"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."

More Coverity pros

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

"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 discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"The interface is easy to use."

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

"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."

"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"The product lacks sufficient customization options."

"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."

"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."

"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

"The tool needs to improve its reporting."

"The solution needs to improve its false positives."

"The quality of the code needs improvement."

More Coverity cons

"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."

"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."

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

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

"The technical support team must be proactive."

"The documentation is lacking and out-of-date, it really needs more love."

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

"The port scanner is a little too slow."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

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

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

"Coverity is quite expensive."

More Coverity pricing and cost advice

"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."

"The tool is open source."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

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

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

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

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

"The tool is open-source."

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

848,716 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

11%

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

Klocwork vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover 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 9% 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

April 2025

Download Coverity product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

April 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

April 2025

Free Report: Coverity vs. OWASP Zap

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

848,716 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.