We performed a comparison between Coverity and Kiuwan 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."The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"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."
"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."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"It has the lowest false positives."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"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 level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"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."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 23 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. Kiuwan 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.
