Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Coverity vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.0
Coverity's customer service is generally responsive and professional, but some users encounter communication delays and inconsistent expertise.
No sentiment score available
Polyspace Code Prover support is appreciated for technical assistance, despite response delays, with online resources sometimes preferred first.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
3.7
Coverity users seek improved UI, better IDE integrations, reduced false positives, expanded language support, and enhanced reporting features.
No sentiment score available
Users seek enhanced automation, faster processing, improved scalability, flexible imports, better dependency handling, and accurate error reporting.
The Coverity license fee is very high, making it tricky for individual developers.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Coverity is praised for scalability, although some face cost issues; it efficiently serves both small and large organizations.
No sentiment score available
Polyspace Code Prover scales well, supporting many users, though floating licenses limit access, impacting processing speed.
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
3.0
Coverity's pricing is perceived as expensive and complex, despite providing multi-language access without code limitations.
No sentiment score available
Enterprise buyers deem Polyspace Code Prover's pricing high yet worthwhile, highlighting its essential value and favorable cost-to-benefit ratio.
Coverity is considered expensive compared to other tools like SonarQube, which is much cheaper.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.5
Coverity is praised for its stability and reliability, with users rating its performance highly and noting minimal configurations needed.
No sentiment score available
Polyspace Code Prover is stable with resolved bugs, occasional issues, licensing concerns, and a 90% stability rating.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.2
Coverity enhances code quality with low false positives, security analysis, customizable options, and seamless integration into development workflows.
Sentiment score
8.8
Polyspace Code Prover enhances automotive code safety by detecting critical issues and supporting ISO 26262 compliance with ease.
The most valuable feature of Coverity is its interprocedural analysis.
 

Categories and Ranking

Coverity
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Coverity and Polyspace Code Prover aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Coverity is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 8.4%, up 7.2% compared to last year.
Polyspace Code Prover, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.0% mindshare, up 0.7% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Pradeep Panchakarla - PeerSpot reviewer
A reliable solution that provides excellent features and detects memory corruption
The run time analysis process must be improved. If we do not run with the main loop, it generates its own main and doesn’t allow developers to modify the execution sequences. The solution must provide more flexibility to the developers to manipulate the runtime analysis tools. The developer must be allowed to modify the main sequence. It will be very easy for them to test their use cases. Otherwise, Polyspace generates a random main file and executes all the functions randomly.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
4%
Manufacturing Company
37%
Computer Software Company
13%
Transportation Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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 do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
What do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?
When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts,...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation. It require support. There could be an issue with range propag...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.