We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Protect and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product gives a few false positives. We get 99 percent true positives."
"The solution has excellent real-time capabilities."
"Protect provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"Protect's reporting GUI is very basic. To get all statuses from the APIs, we needed to write our own KPI dashboard to provide reports."
"Contrast Security Protect needs to improve integration."
"There's room for improvement in the initial setup."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"The solution could use more rules."
"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."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"The setup takes very long."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
Contrast Security Protect is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews. Contrast Security Protect is rated 8.4, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Contrast Security Protect writes "It provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Contrast Security Protect is most compared with SonarQube, Fortify on Demand, Snyk, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning and Sonatype Lifecycle, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Contrast Security Protect vs. Coverity report.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
