We performed a comparison between Coverity and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"The product is easy to use."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"Coverity is not stable."
"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 30 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest 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 Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and SonarCloud, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, Klocwork and ReadyAPI. See our Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.
