Compare Coverity vs. Fortify Application Defender
Sponsored
 | Srinivasa Rao Kuruba Manager, Information Technology at Broadcom Corporation |
 | Anonymous User Security Consultant at a tech services company |
 | Tom Haakma Director of Security at Merito |
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity vs. Fortify Application Defender and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
464,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle."
"The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs."
"I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code."
"We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes."
"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically feed it rules what it's coupled with the WebInspect dynamic application scanning technology."
Cons
"Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis."
"I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages."
"Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them."
"One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk"
"I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan."
"One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"The setup takes very long."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works."
"They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey."
"For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization."
"I don't really know about the pricing, but I'd say it's worth whatever Veracode is charging, because the solution is that good."
"Veracode's price is high. I would like them to better optimize their pricing."
"If I compare the pricing with other software tools, then it is quite competitive. Whatever the price is, they have always given us a good discount."
"Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive."
"We use this product per project rather than per developer... Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"It is expensive."
"The base licensing costs for the SaaS platform is about $900 USD per application, per year."
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security solutions are best for your needs.
464,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Answer: Veracode has offered a dynamic analysis testing solution for several years, having launched our first offering in 2015… more »
Top Answer: I would recommend them. They have the ability to cover multiple languages and come with all the features you would… more »
Top Answer: SonarQube depends on completely what you configure the Rules. You will have the option of the Profile creation and can… more »
Top Answer: Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime.
Top Answer: Coverity is quite expensive. Generally, for security scanning products, the pricing is very expensive. Some solutions… more »
Top Answer: I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse. If Coverity were available as a plugin then… more »
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time.
Top Answer: There are a couple of vulnerabilities not covered by the solution and we are working on how we can improve on these… more »
Top Answer: We use this solution for inspecting our security, such as checking to see if our developers are securing their code… more »
Compared 50% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 43% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Synopsys Static Analysis
HPE Fortify Application Defender, Micro Focus Fortify Application Defender
Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects.
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.
Micro Focus Security Fortify Application Defender is a runtime application self-protection (RASP) solution that helps you manage and mitigate risk from homegrown or third-party applications. It provides centralized visibility into application use and abuse while protecting from software vulnerability exploits and other violations in real time.
Learn more about Veracode
Learn more about Coverity
Learn more about Fortify Application Defender
State of Missouri, Rekner
MStar Semiconductor, Alcatel-Lucent
ServiceMaster, Saltworks, SAP
Financial Services Firm32%
Insurance Company11%
Computer Software Company8%
Engineering Company5%
Computer Software Company34%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm9%
Manufacturing Company6%
Media Company14%
Government14%
Retailer14%
Transportation Company14%
Computer Software Company33%
Manufacturing Company18%
Comms Service Provider16%
Retailer5%
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm12%
Manufacturing Company8%
Small Business22%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise53%
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise52%
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise30%
Large Enterprise60%
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise11%
Large Enterprise87%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity vs. Fortify Application Defender and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
464,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Coverity is ranked 11th in Application Security with 8 reviews while Fortify Application Defender is ranked 17th in Application Security with 3 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.2, while Fortify Application Defender is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Straightforward to install and reports few false positives, but it should be easier to specify your own validation and sanitation routines". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Straightforward to deploy and integrates well with WebInspect to secure against application-specific threats". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Klocwork, Checkmarx and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Fortify Application Defender is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle and Parasoft SOAtest. See our Coverity vs. Fortify Application Defender report.
See our list of best Application Security vendors.
We monitor all Application Security 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.