We performed a comparison between Coverity and SonarCloud 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 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."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"I'm not implementing the solutions. However, I've talked to the people who deploy the tools, and they are happy with how easy setting up SonarCloud is."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"The most valuable feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"The most valuable features of SonarCloud are the ability to discover vulnerabilities, security weak points, security hotspots, and all the feedback that comes into the feature branch. You can deploy the code with the security, you can eliminate the problem at the developer level rather than identifying the problem in the productions."
"SonarCloud is overall a good tool for identifying code smells, bugs, and code duplication, but we've found that using Android Lint is more effective for our needs."
"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."
"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."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"The product lacks sufficient customization options."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"It would be helpful if notifications could go out to an extra person."
"The documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
"SonarCloud can improve the false positives. Sometimes the gates sometimes act a little weird. We then need to manually go and mark the false positive."
"The reports could improve by providing more information. We are not able to use the reports in our operation until they are improved. Additionally, if the vendor provided more customization capabilities it would be a benefit."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews while SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 10 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while SonarCloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Seeker, whereas SonarCloud is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, GitLab and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. SonarCloud 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.