Coverity's cost is quite high. Coverity costs for a year are too high. I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. There are no additional costs apart from the licensing costs attached to the product.
Lead Database security at a consultancy with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-10-10T06:33:35Z
Oct 10, 2023
The solution has higher pricing. The price should be based on the user count. Suppose there is a ten-user license per pack. However, this could be adjusted to five users if needed.
Integration Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-06-23T07:14:42Z
Jun 23, 2023
Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower. It's definitely priced on the higher side, and in that sense, I will definitely give a big alert stating that it is on the higher side of the price.
I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price. It's comparable with other solutions, if not cheaper, but in my opinion, Coverity has the best quality.
It is an expensive solution. Their sales team is very arrogant. I don't like their licensing mechanism. Everything is on very unfriendly terms. There are other tools you can use that are free and open-source. In a collaborative environment, they are very tricky. When it comes to looking at the bugs on a web interface, they try to block them. When you discuss it with them, they are quite unfriendly. Once you got stuck into the tool, they know that it's hard to leave due to the history. When you get into a tool, you need the history since the history needs to be built up, and therefore, over time, you have a dependency on the tool. I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.
This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis. There are other new tools like Veracode, Java Icon and Javascript which are better than Coverity when it comes to visualization. Their cost is significantly lower compared to Synopsys.
Senior Technical Specialist at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2020-09-23T06:10:04Z
Sep 23, 2020
The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code. We may not need more than five user licenses but with a restriction on the number of lines of code, for a small company the cost will shoot up.
Automation Practice Leader at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-04-02T07:00:09Z
Apr 2, 2020
Coverity is quite expensive. Generally, for security scanning products, the pricing is very expensive. Some solutions have pricing that is based on the number of millions of lines of code, but Coverity is priced based on the number of users. I believe that pricing based on the number of lines of codes is cheaper than billing on a per-user basis. If we have 400 or 500 developers and each needs a license then it will be cheaper to have a solution where the cost depends on the size of the code.
Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise...
The tool was fairly priced.
Coverity's cost is quite high. Coverity costs for a year are too high. I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. There are no additional costs apart from the licensing costs attached to the product.
The solution has higher pricing. The price should be based on the user count. Suppose there is a ten-user license per pack. However, this could be adjusted to five users if needed.
I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten.
Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower. It's definitely priced on the higher side, and in that sense, I will definitely give a big alert stating that it is on the higher side of the price.
I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price. It's comparable with other solutions, if not cheaper, but in my opinion, Coverity has the best quality.
The solution is affordable. I rate its pricing a six out of ten.
We use the yearly-based license. I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very expensive, and ten is not expensive at all.
The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license.
It is an expensive solution. Their sales team is very arrogant. I don't like their licensing mechanism. Everything is on very unfriendly terms. There are other tools you can use that are free and open-source. In a collaborative environment, they are very tricky. When it comes to looking at the bugs on a web interface, they try to block them. When you discuss it with them, they are quite unfriendly. Once you got stuck into the tool, they know that it's hard to leave due to the history. When you get into a tool, you need the history since the history needs to be built up, and therefore, over time, you have a dependency on the tool. I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.
This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis. There are other new tools like Veracode, Java Icon and Javascript which are better than Coverity when it comes to visualization. Their cost is significantly lower compared to Synopsys.
We find the pricing to be reasonable.
I'm not sure about the licensing. My commercial team deals with that.
Coverity is very expensive.
It is expensive.
The price is competitive with other solutions.
The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code. We may not need more than five user licenses but with a restriction on the number of lines of code, for a small company the cost will shoot up.
Coverity is quite expensive. Generally, for security scanning products, the pricing is very expensive. Some solutions have pricing that is based on the number of millions of lines of code, but Coverity is priced based on the number of users. I believe that pricing based on the number of lines of codes is cheaper than billing on a per-user basis. If we have 400 or 500 developers and each needs a license then it will be cheaper to have a solution where the cost depends on the size of the code.
Licensing is on a yearly basis.
For the setup, it's better to adapt the solution from the mature projects. Don't care so much the pricing and licensing being the end user.