We performed a comparison between Coverity and Parasoft SOAtest 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's very stable."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution is scalable."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"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 tool needs to improve its reporting."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"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."
"Coverity is not stable."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 30 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest 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 Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and SonarCloud, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, Klocwork and ReadyAPI. See our Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.