We performed a comparison between Coverity and Parasoft SOAtest 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."Coverity is scalable."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"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 product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."
"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The solution is scalable."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"The setup takes very long."
"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."
"We'd like it to be faster."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 30 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and SonarCloud, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Polyspace Code Prover, ReadyAPI and Klocwork. See our Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.