We performed a comparison between Polyspace Code Prover and Qualys Web Application Scanning based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"It works with many different products."
"It is a very stable solution."
"The interface is user-friendly and easy to understand."
"Key features include: Cloud-based, so the installation is not so tedious. Easily deployed. Highly scalable. Comprehensive reporting."
"We can do scanning and submit reports straight to the customers when there are new vulnerabilities, then tell them whether they are affected or not."
"It combines both web application vulnerability management and internal vulnerability management on one platform and dashboard. Usually, you have to purchase separate tools."
"The simplicity of exporting reports and the simplicity and clarity of the reports included with the product are good."
"The most valuable feature of Qualys Web Application Scanning is the effective scanning that can be done."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The software’s pricing could be improved."
"The solution needs to adjust its pricing. They should make it more affordable."
"The scanner reports a lot of false positives, which is something that needs to be improved."
"We procured around 110 licenses for Web Application Scanning, but we have issues running concurrent scans. I don't currently have the option to trigger scans for all 100-plus websites. The default limit is around 10 conference scans. It's not very scalable, to be honest, because of the limitation that they put on concurrent scans."
"The area of false positives could be improved. There are quite a number of false positives as compared to other solutions. They could probably fine tune the algorithm to be able to reduce the number of false positives being detected."
"There should be better visibility into the application."
"The reporting contains too many false positives."
"The virus code updates are not frequent enough."
More Qualys Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews while Qualys Web Application Scanning is ranked 19th in Application Security Tools with 31 reviews. Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6, while Qualys Web Application Scanning is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Qualys Web Application Scanning writes "A stable solution that can be used for infrastructure vulnerability scanning and web application scanning". Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas Qualys Web Application Scanning is most compared with OWASP Zap, Veracode, SonarQube, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Fortify WebInspect. See our Polyspace Code Prover vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
