We performed a comparison between Coverity and HCL AppScan 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."The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"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."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"It was easy to set up."
"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"We are now deploying less defects to production."
"For me, as a manager, it was the ease of use. Inserting security into the development process is not normally an easy project to do. The ability for the developer to actually use it and get results and focuses, that's what counted."
"You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."
"The solution could use more rules."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"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."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"The tool should improve its output. Scanning is not a challenge anymore since there are many such tools available in the market. The product needs to focus on how its output is being used by end users. It should be also more user-friendly. One of the major challenges is in the tool's integration with applications that need to be scanned. Sometimes, the scanning is not proper."
"The databases for HCL are small and have room for improvement."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"I would love to see more containers. Many of the tools are great, they require an amount of configuration, setup and infrastructure. If most the applications were in a container, I think everything would be a little bit faster, because all our clients are now using containers."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while HCL AppScan is ranked 11th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 41 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while HCL AppScan is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap. See our Coverity vs. HCL AppScan 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.
