We performed a comparison between Coverity and OWASP Zap 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."It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"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."
"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."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"The product discovers more vulnerabilities compared to other tools."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"ZAP is easy to use. The automated scan is a powerful feature. You can simulate attacks with various parameters. ZAP integrates well with SonarQube."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The solution is scalable."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"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."
"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 quality of the code needs improvement."
"Coverity is not stable."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"It would be a great improvement if they could include a marketplace to add extra features to the tool."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"ZAP's integration with cloud-based CICD pipelines could be better. The scan should run through the entire pipeline."
"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional. See our Coverity vs. OWASP Zap 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.
