Coverity Reviews

I use the solution for static analysis.

The product has good API documentation. I’m quite happy with it. The product is easy to use.

Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI.

I have been using the solution for some years.

I have not faced any issues with the product’s stability.

The solution is scalable. Four people in my organization use the solution.

The initial setup is easy.

I am using the latest version of the product. I have also used Clang Static Analyzer. People planning to use the solution should try the open-source version first to understand how it works. We must have the paid version of the product to get all the resources and documentation. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to scan our products. We've integrated with our build system and it automatically completes the scanning.

The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time.

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. They could also integrate a software composition analysis scan. This would make my job a bit easier.

There is scope for Coverity to look beyond static analysis. Most of people that I have spoken to use Coverity from a pure static analysis perspective. However, we also need to be able to view dynamic pages and APIs using dynamic scanning and SES scans. Currently we would need to use another solution to be able to do this. 

I have been using this solution for 10 years.

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution.

From a support perspective, they are pretty responsive. I would rate them a five out of five. 

The the last ten years, our company has derived value from using this solution. We continuously evaluate our tech stack and if a better solution came along, we would consider it if it provided more value. 

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. 

There are other new tools like Veracode, Java Icon and Javascript which are better than Coverity when it comes to visualization. Their cost is significantly lower compared to Synopsys. 

Coverity is really good with CC+ and legacy technologies. However, there are other products that are probably as good or even better than Coverity when it comes to Java or cloud applications. 

If someone were to ask me what tool I would recommend, my answer would depend on what technology they're using and what their use case is. My advice would be based on how they're going to use the product and what they're expecting from the tool.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to scan the static code and identify vulnerabilities. We can verify the rules and scripting during various applications' implementation processes.

The solution has a low false positive rate compared to other vendors. Also, it can scan complex codes. In addition, it has the best features for trial analysis, integration, and language support.

Sometimes, vulnerabilities are not identified even after setting up the automated scanning rules. They should include a feature combining automated scanning tools with manual code reviews for better output.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We can quickly scan around 100 DLS using it. I rate its scalability a nine.

I interact with the solution's technical support team in terms of tuning the tool and improvements. They acknowledge the emails and respond to them quickly.

Positive

The solution integrates well with different tools. Thus, its setup process is relatively straightforward.

The solution is affordable. I rate its pricing a six out of ten.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it a ten.

• Raising the level of code quality, security, and robustness in the codebase
• Tracking and addressing code quality issues.
  

Coverity provides developers with a good, best practice, coding advice, and tracks risks of poor coding quality. Coverity reports have urged developers to improve the quality of their code.

• I like that it gives advice and training on how to resolve the most common quality issues. 
• Links to more details on each issue and the background and risks.
  

• Ability to follow source file s-links into the target location for issuing assignments through GIT.  Our current build environment uses symbolic links into the git repo and Coverity does not follow the link into the actual location of the source file to determine the git author.
• Single API for all interactions. I am not a fan of using both SOAP and REST APIs and Coverity offers a mix of functionality depending on the interface used. I would greatly prefer a full REST API with improved documentation for all actions including issuing assignments, streaming, and project creation. 

We are working on medical devices, and the code base is written in C++. We use Coverity to find the vulnerability in those C++ codes.

Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities.

The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved.

I have been using Coverity for four months.

Coverity has good stability.

I rate Coverity more than eight out of ten for stability.

Around 20 to 25 developers use Coverity in our organization.

I rate Coverity a seven to eight out of ten for scalability.

We use SonarQube for Java-based projects and Coverity for C and C++-based projects.

The solution’s initial setup is simple.

Overall, I rate Coverity a seven out of ten.

We are using GK and the latest version for port deployment.

I have been using Coverity for three and a half years.

Coverity is not stable but it is sufficient for our organization's requirements.

Coverity is scalable.

We contacted technical support to help us clean up an issue we had.

If they have a cluster structure, then definitely they should use Coverity. I would rate Coverity a nine out of ten.

We use Coverity for static analysis of our code.

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. So either we are perfect, or the tool is missing something. 

I've been using Coverity for a couple of years.

I haven't had much experience trying to scale up Coverity. Only three people at our company work with it.

I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be. They are on par with other tech support in terms of knowledge. However, their style of communication could use some improvement.

Setting up Coverity is highly complex. The upgrade procedure is also pretty tough. We've had trouble with it on at least one occasion. When I went ahead with it, it destroyed the installation. I couldn't go back. So it's challenging to understand from the documentation. It seems like they tried to cover all possible topics in their manuals, so they ended up scratching the surface of everything in the world except for the particular practical items that I needed.

Coverity is very expensive.

I rate Coverity five out of 10, but it's tough for me to judge because we decided to purchase it based on one requirement that no other static analysis tool could satisfy. For that reason, we haven't tried anything else. So, let's make an analogy. Let's say I used Sony TVs my entire life, and someone comes up and says, "Hey, there is a new brand of TVs. What do you think of them? Do you think they are good?" How would I know? By comparison, SonarQube seems to be more feature-rich for a standard programming language, and it works with more continuous integration tools.

We use it in our company during product development.

It provides reports about a lot of potential defects.

Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys.

I have been using Coverity for about three or four years.

It has good stability.

Its scalability is good. 

They are professional and very responsible. They have a local FAE.

It is not straightforward, but it is also not too complex. The learning curve needed for installing Coverity is okay.

It is expensive.

I would recommend this solution if you can afford it. If you have enough budget, it is one of the best solutions right now. There may be other cheaper solutions, but you get what you pay for.

We have been using Coverity for several years. We would not have continued using it if it was not a good solution. We always have some minor questions or improvements for them, and they always give us a relatively fast response.

I would rate Coverity a nine out of ten. Only its price should be improved.