We performed a comparison between Coverity and Klocwork based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, Klocwork comes out ahead of Coverity. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that Coverity is expensive and its support has a slow response time.
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"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."
"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 product is easy to use."
"There's a feature in Klocwork called 'on-the-fly analysis', which helps developers to find and fix the defects at the time of development itself."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"We like using the static analysis and code refactoring, which are very valuable because of our requirements to meet safety critical levels and reliability."
"The most valuable feature of Klocwork is finding defects while you're doing the coding. For example, if you have an IDE plug-in of Klocwork on Visual Studio or Eclipse, you can find the faults; similar to using spell check on Word, you can find out defects during the development phase, which means that you don't have to wait till the development is over to find the flaws and address the deficiencies. I also find language support in Klocwork good because it used to support only C, C++, C#, and Java, but now, it also supports Java scripts and Python."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"We bought Klocwork, but it was limited to one little program, but the program is now sort of failing. So, we have a license for usage on a program that is sort of failing, and we really can't use the license on anything else."
"The main problem is that since it only parses the code, the warnings or the problems that are given as a result of the report can sometimes require a lot of effort to analyze."
"I believe it should support more languages, such as Python and JavaScript."
"Klocwork does have a problem with true positives. It only found 30% of true positives in the Juliet test case."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 11th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 20 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Klocwork is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Coverity vs. Klocwork report.
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.