We performed a comparison between Coverity and Mend.io 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 solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"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."
"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 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."
"With the fix suggestions feature, not only do you get the specific trace back to where the vulnerability is within your code, but you also get fix suggestions."
"Its ease of use and good results are the most valuable."
"WhiteSource is unique in the scanning of open-source licenses. Additionally, the vulnerabilities aspect of the solution is a benefit. We don't use WhiteSource in the whole organization, but we use it for some projects. There we receive a sense of the vulnerabilities of the open-source components, which improves our security work. The reports are automated which is useful."
"For us, the most valuable tool was open-source licensing analysis."
"What is very nice is that the product is very easy to set up. When you want to implement Mend.io, it just takes a few minutes to create your organization, create your products, and scan them. It's really convenient to have Mend scanning your products in less than one hour."
"The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should."
"The most valuable feature is the unified JAR to scan for all langs (wss-scanner jar)."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"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."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
"They're working on a UI refresh. That's probably been one of the pain points for us as it feels like a really old application."
"We specifically use this solution within our CICD pipelines in Azure DevOps, and we would like to have a gate so that if the score falls below a certain value then we can block the pipeline from running."
"The only thing that I don't find support for on Mend Prioritize is C++."
"On the reporting side, they could make some improvements. They are making the reports better and better, but sometimes it takes a lot of time to generate a report for our entire organization."
"We have ended our relationship with WhiteSource. We were using an agent that we built in the pipeline so that you can scan the projects during build time. But unfortunately, that agent didn't work at all. We have more than 500 projects, and it doubled or tripled the build time. For other projects, we had the failure of the builds without any known reason. It was not usable at all. We spent maybe one year working on the issues to try to make it work, but it didn't in the end. We should be able to integrate it with ID and Shift Left so that the developers are able to see the scan results without waiting for the build to fail."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"The solution lacks the code snippet part."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 4th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 29 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Mend.io 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 Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand and Checkmarx One, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode and GitLab. See our Coverity vs. Mend.io report.
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.
