We performed a comparison between Coverity and GitHub Code Scanning based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."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 easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"The product is easy to use."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"Coverity is scalable."
"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."
"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"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 solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The setup takes very long."
"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while GitHub Code Scanning is ranked 20th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 1 review. Coverity is rated 7.8, while GitHub Code Scanning is rated 10.0. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub Code Scanning writes "A highly stable solution that can be used for source code management". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas GitHub Code Scanning is most compared with SonarCloud, SonarQube, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and Veracode.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
