We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL) are valuable."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"It is a stable product."
"The report function is the solution's greatest asset."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"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."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"It's very stable."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"The setup takes very long."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"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."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"The solution could use more rules."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 67 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Mend.io, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover. See our Checkmarx One vs. Coverity report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.