We performed a comparison between Klocwork and Polyspace Code Prover 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."Klocwork's most valuable feature is the static code analysis feature. It detects the potential problem earlier to allow the developer to receive feedback quickly and then address it before it becomes a problem."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"It's integrated into our CI, continuous integration."
"Technical support is quite good."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"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."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"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."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"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."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"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."
"Now the only issue we have is that whenever we need to get the code we have to build it first. Then we can get the report."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"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."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
Klocwork is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 20 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Klocwork is rated 8.2, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, CodeSonar, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, CodeSonar, Parasoft SOAtest and GitLab. See our Klocwork vs. Polyspace Code Prover 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.