We performed a comparison between Coverity and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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 security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"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 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 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."
"This solution is easy to use."
"It is fully automated."
"Tenable provides the end analysis results covering all the published vulnerabilities and information on the market."
"It collects the vulnerabilities on the hostnames and sends them to the Tenable.io cloud. Tenable has its own cloud where Tenable.io is running, but there are many connectors to other cloud solutions. Tenable can do vulnerability scanning for other cloud managers such as Azure, Amazon, and so on."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is very easy to use."
"The most effective feature of the product is the ability to scan the entire environment."
"Our customers adopt this solution because of the replication testing and the vulnerability assessment it can do. It is a multi-faceted product."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"We use the tool for our websites. We have a vulnerable subdomain. The tool helps to scan it for vulnerabilities."
"The solution could use more rules."
"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."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"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."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"Coverity is not stable."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"I would like for them to add proxy filtering, where you can transfer and alter the package. It is fully automated. Other web application testers programs are actually proxy software, and the proxy software gives you the flexibility of modifying the outgoing package, which will actually help you in exploiting any vulnerability in detail."
"The solution's dashboards could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning could improve by offering faster fuzzing."
"It would be great if there were a dashboard that is more user-friendly."
"The cloud and the on-premises versions have their own controllers, and there is no way to centrally manage controllers."
"The platform's technical support services could be better."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning conducts a general scan, which wastes time. The scan needs to be specific."
"It isn't easy to manage vulnerabilities in Tenable."
More Tenable.io Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is ranked 24th in Application Security Tools with 14 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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 Tenable.io Web Application Scanning writes "Highly Recommended Solution with Latest Scanning Methods". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is most compared with Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify on Demand, SonarQube and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional. See our Coverity vs. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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.
