We performed a comparison between Coverity and OWASP Zap 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."One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"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 solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"This solution is easy to use."
"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"They offer free access to some other tools."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"There are too many false positives."
"OWASP Zap needs to extend to mobile application testing."
"There isn't too much information about it online."
"It needs more robust reporting tools."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while OWASP Zap is ranked 7th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 37 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while OWASP Zap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Veracode. See our Coverity vs. OWASP Zap 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.
