We performed a comparison between Coverity and Klocwork based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, Klocwork comes out ahead of Coverity. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that Coverity is expensive and its support has a slow response time.
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"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."
"This solution is easy to use."
"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."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"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 interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"Technical support is quite good."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"There's a feature in Klocwork called 'on-the-fly analysis', which helps developers to find and fix the defects at the time of development itself."
"Klocwork's most valuable feature is the static code analysis feature. It detects the potential problem earlier to allow the developer to receive feedback quickly and then address it before it becomes a problem."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"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."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"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."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"Klocwork does have a problem with true positives. It only found 30% of true positives in the Juliet test case."
"What needs improvement in Klocwork, compared to other products in the market, is the dashboard or reporting mechanisms that need to be a bit more flexible. The Klocwork dashboard could be improved. Though it's good, it's not as good as some of the other products in the market, which is a problem. The reporting could be more detailed and easier to sort out because sorting in Klocwork could be a bit more time-consuming, mainly when sorting defects based on filters, compared to how it's done on other tools such as Coverity."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"We bought Klocwork, but it was limited to one little program, but the program is now sort of failing. So, we have a license for usage on a program that is sort of failing, and we really can't use the license on anything else."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
"Now the only issue we have is that whenever we need to get the code we have to build it first. Then we can get the report."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 11th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 20 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Klocwork is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Coverity vs. Klocwork 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.