We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"Checkmarx has a slightly difficult compilation with the CI/CD pipeline."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"The solution could use more rules."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"We'd like it to be faster."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 67 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Mend.io, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover. See our Checkmarx One vs. Coverity report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.