We performed a comparison between CAST Highlight and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"The most valuable features of the CAST Highlight are the interface and there are three notations that are very simple to understand and communicate with."
"The most valuable features of CAST Highlight are automation and speed."
"It offers good performance."
"The way it tells you which codebase is more ready for the cloud and which codebase is less ready is very valuable. It works seamlessly with most languages."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"This solution is easy to use."
"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."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"It's very stable."
"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 ease of configuration and customization could be improved in CAST Highlight."
"Its price should be better. It is a pretty costly tool. They have two products: CAST Highlight and CAST AIP. I would expect CAST Highlight to have the Help dashboard and the Engineering dashboard. These dashboards are currently a part of CAST AIP, and if these are made available in CAST Highlight, customers won't have to use two different products all the time."
"There's a bit of a learning curve at the outset."
"CAST Highlight could improve to allow us to comment and do a deep analysis by ourselves."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"The solution could use more rules."
CAST Highlight is ranked 10th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 5 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews. CAST Highlight is rated 7.8, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of CAST Highlight writes "Easy to set up with optimized and automated insights". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". CAST Highlight is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Checkmarx, Veracode and GitLab, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx and Veracode. See our CAST Highlight vs. Coverity report.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.