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

Polyspace Bug Finder vs froglogic Coco Code Coverage comparison

Qt Group and MathWorks are both solutions in the Debugging category. Qt Group is ranked #6, while MathWorks is ranked #5. Qt Group holds a 4.0% mindshare in D, compared to MathWorks’s 4.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Qt Group users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 50% of MathWorks users who would recommend it.
froglogic Coco Code Coverage
Read 1 froglogic Coco Code Coverage review
  • 197 Views
  • 44 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
Polyspace Bug Finder
Read 2 Polyspace Bug Finder reviews
  • 271 Views
  • 55 Comparison Views
50% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive Summary
We performed a comparison between froglogic Coco Code Coverage and Polyspace Bug Finder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sentry, BugSnag, GNU and others in Debugging.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Polyspace Bug Finder vs. Sentry Report (Updated: October 2024).
Buyer's Guide
Polyspace Bug Finder vs. Sentry
October 2024
Download the complete report
Helped 816,406 peers since 2012
 

Categories and Ranking

froglogic Coco Code Coverage
Ranking in Debugging
6th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polyspace Bug Finder
Ranking in Debugging
5th
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Debugging category, the mindshare of froglogic Coco Code Coverage is 4.0%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Bug Finder is 4.5%, up from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Debugging
 

Featured Reviews

AnirbanSarkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates well, highly scalable, but more programming langue support needed
If someone is already using Squish as a regression tool, froglogic Coco Code Coverage can be a very handy add-on to that. If somebody is already having some mechanism to write their unit test cases, froglogic Coco Code Coverage can be a very good tool for giving the code coverage. The solution overall is still in development, they need to polish a few things moving forward. I rate froglogic Coco Code Coverage a seven out of ten.
Read full review
PB
Offers Misra and Autosar compliance through static and abstract code analysis, but the reports could be cleaner
One of the issues we have is commenting. When something is not a defect in the code, for an example. Adding a comment for that line, or if the comment has two or three lines, it can be difficult. Simulating a real-time operating system and firmware can be quite difficult if you're doing multiple threading in different entry points. If you're not using the same macros for critical sections, it can also be a little bit tedious to get around. I would like to see better command-line tools that we can interface it with. We would like to see support for a continuous integration build environment. The reports in this solution could be made cleaner.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If somebody is using a kind of Squish as a regression testing tool, froglogic Coco Code Coverage can be used in parallel because these two particular products can communicate with one another."
"This solution has improved our adherence to coding standards."
"This solution helps new developers get up to speed with the Autosar, Misra C and C++ standards quickly."
 

Cons

"froglogic Coco Code Coverage could improve by adding more computer programing language, it would be better. It only covers four languages."
"I would like to see support for annotating "Not a bug" in the source code."
"Simulating a real-time operating system and firmware can be quite difficult if you're doing multiple threading in different entry points."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"This is not an expensive solution for what it offers, as there are other tools that are significantly more expensive."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Debugging solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Aerospace/Defense Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
13%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Comparisons

No data available
No data available
 

Product Reports

No data available
Buyer's Guide
Polyspace Bug Finder vs. Sentry
October 2024
Polyspace Bug Finder reportDownload Polyspace Bug Finder product report
 

Learn More

Qt Group
Video not available
MathWorks
 

Overview

The Coco code coverage tool is a complete, cross-platform, cross-compiler tool chain allowing to analyze the test coverage of C, C++, C# and Tcl code.

Coco is used to

  • Find and highlight untested code sections
  • Find redundant tests (i.e., tests that merely duplicate others)
  • Find unreachable code
  • Compute the optimal order of test execution that will maximize the overall coverage
  • Compare the test coverage of two application versions or test executions.

Polyspace Bug Finder helps companies identify software bugs via static analysis.

 

Sample Customers

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Buyer's Guide
BugSnag vs. Polyspace Bug Finder
October 2024
Free Report: BugSnag vs. Polyspace Bug Finder
Find out what your peers are saying about BugSnag vs. Polyspace Bug Finder and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
DOWNLOAD NOW
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our list of best Debugging vendors.

We monitor all Debugging 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.