We performed a comparison between Coverity and Kiuwan 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 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."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"It's very stable."
"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 solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I like that I can scan the code without sending it to the Kiuwan cloud. I can do it locally on my device. When the local analyzer finishes, the results display on the dashboard in the cloud. It's essential for security purposes to be able to scan my code locally."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"The setup takes very long."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"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 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."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"Coverity is not stable."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 23 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan 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 Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. Kiuwan 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.
