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."This solution is easy to use."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"Coverity is scalable."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"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."
"The most valuable features of SonarCloud are the ability to discover vulnerabilities, security weak points, security hotspots, and all the feedback that comes into the feature branch. You can deploy the code with the security, you can eliminate the problem at the developer level rather than identifying the problem in the productions."
"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."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"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."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"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."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"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 reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Coverity is not stable."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
"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."
"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 documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"SonarCloud can improve the false positives. Sometimes the gates sometimes act a little weird. We then need to manually go and mark the false positive."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
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.