We performed a comparison between Coverity and Mend.io 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 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 product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"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."
"It gives us full visibility into what we're using, what needs to be updated, and what's vulnerable, which helps us make better decisions."
"Attribution and license due diligence reports help us with aggregating the necessary data that we, in turn, have to provide to satisfy the various licenses copyright and component usage disclosures in our software."
"With the fix suggestions feature, not only do you get the specific trace back to where the vulnerability is within your code, but you also get fix suggestions."
"The vulnerability analysis is the best aspect of the solution."
"Enables scanning/collecting third-party libraries and classifying license types. In this way we ensure our third-party software policy is followed."
"The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should."
"The most valuable feature is the unified JAR to scan for all langs (wss-scanner jar)."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"The setup takes very long."
"They could improve the usability. For example, how you set things up, even though it's straightforward, it could be still be easier."
"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 should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"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."
"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"It would be good if it can do dynamic code analysis. It is not necessarily in that space, but it can do more because we have too many tools. Their partner relationship support is a little bit confusing. They haven't really streamlined the support process when we buy through a reseller. They should improve their process."
"Needs better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations and it definitely needs a better role/action model."
"The solution lacks the code snippet part."
"If anything, I would spend more time making this more user-friendly, better documenting the CLI, and adding more examples to help expand the current documentation."
"I rated the solution an eight out of ten because WhiteSource hasn't built in a couple of features that we would have loved to use and they say they're on their roadmap. I'm hoping that they'll be able to build and deliver in 2022."
"WhiteSource only produces a report, which is nice to look at. However, you have to check that report every week, to see if something was found that you don't want. It would be great if the build that's generating a report would fail if it finds a very important vulnerability, for instance."
"The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily."
Coverity is ranked 4th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 34 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 4th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 29 reviews. Coverity is rated 7.8, while Mend.io is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Best SAST tool to check software quality issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Klocwork, Fortify on Demand and Checkmarx One, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Veracode, Snyk and GitLab. See our Coverity vs. Mend.io 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.
