We performed a comparison between Coverity and Parasoft SOAtest 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."Coverity is scalable."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The solution has helped to increase staff productivity and improved our work significantly by approximately 20 percent."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is scalable."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Coverity is not stable."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."
"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."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 33 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 30 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest 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 Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Fortify Application Defender, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Klocwork, Polyspace Code Prover and ReadyAPI. See our Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.
