We performed a comparison between Coverity and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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."The product is easy to use."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"It's very stable."
"The most valuable features of Tenable.io Web Application Scanning are the integration into specific use cases and scanning. All of the features of the solution are useful."
"We can get detailed information about vulnerabilities."
"We use the tool for our websites. We have a vulnerable subdomain. The tool helps to scan it for vulnerabilities."
"All the features are valuable to us as they offer cutting-edge scanning methods and address the latest issues with a contemporary approach. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is highly stable. I rate it a nine out ten. Since the solution works on the Cloud, it's highly scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. The setup of the solution is straightforward. The Return on Investment is substantial. I recommend the solution to all."
"The solution's instant reports feature is the most effective for detecting threats."
"The most effective feature of the product is the ability to scan the entire environment."
"It collects the vulnerabilities on the hostnames and sends them to the Tenable.io cloud. Tenable has its own cloud where Tenable.io is running, but there are many connectors to other cloud solutions. Tenable can do vulnerability scanning for other cloud managers such as Azure, Amazon, and so on."
"The solution is stable."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"Coverity is not stable."
"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."
"The tool needs to improve its reporting."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"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."
"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."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"The technical support should be improved. Currently, some attacks are detected while others are not."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"I would like for them to add proxy filtering, where you can transfer and alter the package. It is fully automated. Other web application testers programs are actually proxy software, and the proxy software gives you the flexibility of modifying the outgoing package, which will actually help you in exploiting any vulnerability in detail."
"The cloud and the on-premises versions have their own controllers, and there is no way to centrally manage controllers."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is not very user-friendly and you need a lot of information to get proper reports. The tool's support is not very responsive."
"The platform's technical support services could be better."
"They have a general dashboard for web application scanning, but the dashboards and reporting can be improved. They probably have some features in their roadmap."
"The solution's dashboards could be improved and made more user-friendly."
More Tenable.io Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is ranked 24th in Application Security Tools with 14 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable.io Web Application Scanning writes "Highly Recommended Solution with Latest Scanning Methods". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is most compared with Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify on Demand, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and SonarQube. See our Coverity vs. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning report.
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.
