We performed a comparison between Coverity and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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 product is easy to use."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"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 reporting feature is up to the mark."
"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 solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"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."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"Enables automation of different tasks such as authorization testing."
"There is no other tool like it. I like the intuitiveness and the plugins that are available."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"You can scan any number of applications and it updates its database."
"The reporting part is the most valuable. It also has very good features. We use almost all of the features for different kinds of customers and needs."
"The Repeater and the BApp extensions are particularly useful. Certain extensions, such as the Active Scan extensions and the Autoracer extension, are very good."
"The automated scan is what I find most useful because a lot of customers will need it. Not every domain will be looking for complete security, they just need a stamp on the security key. For these kinds of customers, the scan works really well."
"Coverity is not stable."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"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."
"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."
"The setup takes very long."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"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."
"There were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it."
"The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad."
"I would like to see the return of the spider mechanism instead of the crawling feature. Burp Suite's earlier version 1.7 had an excellent spider option, and it would be beneficial if Burp incorporated those features into the current version. The crawling techniques used in the current version are not as efficient as those used in earlier versions."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
"The price could be better. The rest is fine."
"Improvement should be done as per the requirements of customers."
"The pricing of the solution is quite high."
More PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 5th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 57 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "The solution is versatile and easy to deploy, but it needs to give more detailed security reports". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix, HCL AppScan and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Coverity vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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.
