We performed a comparison between Coverity and Klocwork based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, Klocwork comes out ahead of Coverity. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that Coverity is expensive and its support has a slow response time.
"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"The reporting helps us understand the trend of our results and whether we improve over time. We can see the history within Klocwork's server architecture and know that we're making things better. It creates a great story for our management. We can demonstrate value and how our software is developing over time."
"We like using the static analysis and code refactoring, which are very valuable because of our requirements to meet safety critical levels and reliability."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"There's a feature in Klocwork called 'on-the-fly analysis', which helps developers to find and fix the defects at the time of development itself."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"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."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"We bought Klocwork, but it was limited to one little program, but the program is now sort of failing. So, we have a license for usage on a program that is sort of failing, and we really can't use the license on anything else."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"I hope that in each new release they add new features relating to the addition of checkers, improving their analysis engines etc."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
"I believe it should support more languages, such as Python and JavaScript."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"What needs improvement in Klocwork, compared to other products in the market, is the dashboard or reporting mechanisms that need to be a bit more flexible. The Klocwork dashboard could be improved. Though it's good, it's not as good as some of the other products in the market, which is a problem. The reporting could be more detailed and easier to sort out because sorting in Klocwork could be a bit more time-consuming, mainly when sorting defects based on filters, compared to how it's done on other tools such as Coverity."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 13th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 20 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Klocwork is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One, Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Coverity vs. Klocwork 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.
