No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Coverity Static vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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 Static
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
22nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (13th), API Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 2.5%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.8%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Coverity Static2.5%
Parasoft SOAtest0.8%
Other96.7%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

SP
Lead Information Security at GEP Worldwide at ReBIT
Helps us identify security vulnerabilities in the development phase and provides a plugin for the developer IDE
The initial setup is good. When I use the product to scan the code in the DevOps pipeline, the issue coverage can be greater, which can help speed up risk identification in the CI/CD pipeline. That is one area where improvement can be made. Corresponding steps can be taken for that. It integrates with most of the tools, like ticketing tools, configuration tools, Jenkins, and the pipeline. That is fantastic.
reviewer2772063 - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Specialist 2A at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Has reduced manual testing effort with customization options but occasionally crashes during complex executions
One improvement would be to integrate it with modern technologies such as AI, so we can generate test cases by providing the details so that it can generate the structure, and later the person working can modify and enhance it. We can add more customized tools, and reporting can be enhanced. Currently, the reporting part is at a step level, and it does not give details for a particular test case, so improvements in those areas would be beneficial. There are performance issues where the tool crashes sometimes. In particular use cases with numerous steps, it experiences crashes. I have encountered stability and performance issues with it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"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 solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"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."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"It's very stable."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"In general, this is a hassle free, user friendly tool and it doesn't require much knowledge if you're using the manual testing."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"The solution is scalable."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"This tooling made us more agile and more ready for continuous integration."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
 

Cons

"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"The solution could use more rules."
"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."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"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."
"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."
"The setup takes very long."
"One area that could use improvement is the cryptography capabilities in Parasoft SOAtest. It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions."
"We noticed that our project workspace is sometimes corrupted without any reason."
"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."
"The platform can become unstable as the memory usage increases."
"I was having trouble with the browser automation on my Mac laptop."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices."
"The need to refresh 'Test Case Explorer' when adding a data source or environment file, can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"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."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."
"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."
"The price is around $5,000 USD."
"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."
"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
"They do have a confusing licensing structure."
"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
"The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
28%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise23
 

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 needs improvement with Coverity?
The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but they take a longer time to respond. The core support is not straightforward, an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?
I am not involved in the pricing aspect, setup cost, or licensing cost of Parasoft SOAtest. Our dedicated tools and support teams handle those aspects.
What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?
One improvement would be to integrate it with modern technologies such as AI, so we can generate test cases by providing the details so that it can generate the structure, and later the person work...
What is your primary use case for Parasoft SOAtest?
We use Parasoft SOAtest for API testing and service virtualization with responder setup. Service virtualization is very helpful in our testing. When any downstream system is not available or we are...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
SOAtest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.