We performed a comparison between Coverity and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"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's very stable."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Technical support is helpful."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"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."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Coverity is not stable."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 30 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and SonarCloud, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, Klocwork and ReadyAPI. See our Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.