We performed a comparison between Coverity and Polyspace Code Prover 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)."Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"It's very stable."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."
"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 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."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"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 level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"The setup takes very long."
"The solution could use more rules."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The tool has some stability issues."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Polyspace Code Prover 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 Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Polaris Software Integrity Platform, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, CodeSonar, Parasoft SOAtest and GitLab.
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.
