We performed a comparison between Coverity and Kiuwan 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."Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"This solution is easy to use."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The setup takes very long."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 23 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. Kiuwan 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.
