We performed a comparison between Coverity and Kiuwan 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."We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"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."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"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."
"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."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 16th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 23 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our Coverity vs. Kiuwan 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.
