We performed a comparison between Acunetix and Coverity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the features that I feel is groundbreaking, that I would like to see expanded on, is the IAS feature: The Interactive Application Security Testing module that gets loaded onto an application on a server, for more in-depth, granular findings. I think that is really neat. I haven't seen a lot of competitors doing that."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"The most valuable feature of Acunetix is the UI and the scan results are simple."
"There is a lot of documentation on their website which makes setting it up and using it quite simple."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."
"You can't actually change your password after you've set it unless you go back into the administration account and you change it there. Thus, if you're locked out and don't remember your password, that's a thing."
"It should be easier to recreate something manually, with the manual tool, because Acunetix is an automatic tool. If it finds something, it should be easier to manually replicate it. Sometimes you don't get the raw data from the input and output, so that could be improved."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"Coverity could improve the ease of use. Sometimes things become difficult and you need to follow the guides from the website but the guides could be better."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"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."
Acunetix is ranked 13th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 26 reviews while Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 33 reviews. Acunetix is rated 7.6, while Coverity is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Acunetix writes "Fantastic reporting features hindered by slow scanning ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". Acunetix is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, HCL AppScan and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode. See our Acunetix vs. Coverity report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
