We performed a comparison between Coverity and SonarCloud 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 solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"It's very stable."
"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 app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"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."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"I'm not implementing the solutions. However, I've talked to the people who deploy the tools, and they are happy with how easy setting up SonarCloud is."
"The solution provides continuous code analysis which has improved the quality of our code. It can raise alarms on vulnerabilities with immediate reports on the dashboard. Few things are false positives and we can customize the rules."
"SonarCloud is overall a good tool for identifying code smells, bugs, and code duplication, but we've found that using Android Lint is more effective for our needs."
"The most valuable feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"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."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"CI/CD pipeline is part of a whole chain of design, development, and production, and it's becoming increasingly crucial to optimize the various tools across different stages. However, it's still a silo approach because the full integration is missing. This isn't just an issue with SonarCloud. It's a general problem with tooling."
"The reports could improve by providing more information. We are not able to use the reports in our operation until they are improved. Additionally, if the vendor provided more customization capabilities it would be a benefit."
"SonarCloud's UI needs enhancement."
"The documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 10 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while SonarCloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Seeker, whereas SonarCloud is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, GitLab and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. SonarCloud 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.
