We performed a comparison between Coverity and GitHub Code Scanning based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"This solution is easy to use."
"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 solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"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."
"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."
"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 solution could use more rules."
"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while GitHub Code Scanning is ranked 20th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Coverity is rated 7.8, while GitHub Code Scanning is rated 10.0. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub Code Scanning writes "A highly stable solution that can be used for source code management". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas GitHub Code Scanning is most compared with SonarCloud, SonarQube, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and Veracode.
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.