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

Coverity vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Spirent CyberFlood
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
32nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (35th)
 

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 Spirent CyberFlood is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

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.
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 help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"Coverity is scalable."
"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"This solution is easy to use."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
 

Cons

"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."
"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."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The solution could use more rules."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."
"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."
"It is expensive."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"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."
"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
33%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
4%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
 

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 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...
 

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 vs. Spirent CyberFlood and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.