We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."
"One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"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 security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"This solution is easy to use."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"We have had issues during upgrades where their scans worked on some apps better with previous versions. Then, we had to work with their tech support, who were great, to get it fixed for the next version."
"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"Acunetix needs to improve its cost."
"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."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"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."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"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."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 26 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Acunetix vs. Coverity report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
