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

Coverity Static vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

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)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Spirent CyberFlood
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
29th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (32nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 6.3%, down from 7.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent CyberFlood is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity6.3%
Spirent CyberFlood0.4%
Other93.3%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jaile Sebes - PeerSpot reviewer
Resolving critical software issues demands faster implementation and better integration
We use Coverity primarily to find issues such as software bugs and memory leaks, especially in C++ and C# projects. It helps us identify deadlocks, synchronization issues, and product crashes Coverity has been instrumental in resolving product crashes by detecting various issues like deadlocks.…
Jos Badimo - PeerSpot reviewer
Test assurance improves compliance and products with good performance
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one screen most of the time. Even if the system navigates me to another screen, it should effectively return me to the main screen.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
 

Cons

"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Coverity is not stable."
"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"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."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Coverity is quite 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."
"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."
"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
4%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
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 needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one...
What is your primary use case for Spirent CyberFlood?
I have been using the solution for a year now. The customers I work with are focused on both custom test assurance and test automation. The solution is utilized in the financial services sector and...
What advice do you have for others considering Spirent CyberFlood?
The language barrier and time difference pose significant issues with customer support. The price is competitive. The biggest benefits I find are test assurance, the reliability of the test results...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Digicel
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. Spirent CyberFlood and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.