Acunetix vs Coverity Static comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.5, while Black Duck is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 2.7% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 4.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 38 Acunetix reviews

6,442 Views
3,994 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,075 Views
8,362 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

Acunetix and Coverity Static are significant players in the security testing space. Coverity Static has the advantage due to its advanced features and deeper code analysis, which can justify its higher price, though Acunetix offers a more user-centric experience.

Features: Acunetix provides Interactive Application Security Testing, a centralized dashboard, and seamless integration with other tools, enhancing its user interface and accessibility. Coverity Static is strong in code quality analysis, detailed security insights, and early vulnerability detection features.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix could reduce false positives, improve pricing flexibility, and enhance manual replication of vulnerabilities. Coverity Static users seek better integration with modern environments, lower false positives, and dynamic scanning features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix offers both cloud and on-premises deployment options with effective, though not consistently fast, customer support. Coverity Static, mostly on-premises, faces some complexity in deployment, relying on ticket submissions for support, making it less immediate.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix's price increase now aligns more with market levels, yet its scanning capabilities maintain its value. Coverity Static is pricier, focused on user count rather than code volume, impacting cost-effectiveness. Both show ROI through vulnerability mitigation, with Acunetix favored by smaller firms and Coverity Static by larger enterprises due to substantial code analysis.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Coverity Static Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

8th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (11th), Vulnerability Management (19th), DevSecOps (6th)

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

6th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 2.7%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.2%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Coverity Static	4.2%
Acunetix	2.7%
Other	93.1%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Rahul Kumar

Senior Engineer - Penetration Tester at a government with 10,001+ employees

Identifies vulnerabilities across bulk web applications but needs better support and cleaner reports

The best feature Acunetix offers is the centralized dashboard and the quality of reports it generates, which includes various options for selecting reports and developer options for directly sharing the reports with developers. The centralized dashboard of Acunetix gives visibility into the security aspects of mass applications; for instance, with more than 200 applications, it provides a valuable overview of findings and necessary fixes, along with a high-level summary that helps us achieve compliance through monthly and sometimes weekly scanning. In terms of reporting, Acunetix is excellent because it can generate different types of reports, such as an executive summary report, detailed reports, and developer reports that can be shared directly with developers. Acunetix positively impacts my organization by helping identify outdated libraries and applications, including legacy applications vulnerable to old attacks based on OWASP Top 10, thus aiding in compliance checks for PCI DSS and OWASP. Acunetix provides a centralized report with compliance-related aspects and a vulnerability timeline, effectively helping reduce vulnerabilities and save time.

Read full review

Kasiraja Thangapandian

Software Engineering Manager at Visteon Corporation

Using tools for compliance is beneficial but cost concerns persist

We have been using Coverity for quite a long period. It has been fine for our needs. I would rate Coverity between eight to nine, though the cost is high. I would rate their support from Coverity as six. That is the main complaint, but we still appreciate having it.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most important feature is that it's a web-based graphical user interface. That is a great addition. Also, the ability to schedule scans is great."

"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."

"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."

"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."

"By helping me patch vulnerabilities, Acunetix has led to measurable outcomes like time saved and fewer incidents."

"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."

"The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities."

"It generates automated reports."

More Acunetix pros

"Coverity is scalable."

"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."

"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."

"This solution is easy to use."

"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."

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."

"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."

"I believe Acunetix can improve customer support, as the dedicated support staff are often unfamiliar with problems and troubleshooting, leading to communication gaps that delay issue resolution."

"The only problem that they have is the price. It is a bit expensive, and you cannot change the number of applications for the whole year."

"The solution can be improved by adding the ability to scan subdomains automatically, and by providing reports that can be exported to external databases to share with other solutions."

"I believe Acunetix can improve customer support, as the dedicated support staff are often unfamiliar with problems and troubleshooting, leading to communication gaps that delay issue resolution."

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"Acunetix needs to be dynamic with JavaScript code, unlike Netsparker which can scan complex agents."

"Acunetix may need to reconsider the cost or price compared to other vendors."

More Acunetix cons

"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."

"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."

"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."

"The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through."

"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."

"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."

"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."

"The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."

"Acunetix was around the same price as all the other vendors we looked at, nothing special."

"The price is exceptionally high."

"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."

"When we looked at all other vendors and what they were asking for, to provide a third of what Acunetix was capable of doing, it was an easy decision... But now that it's coming to a cost where it's line with market value, it becomes more of a competition... Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted."

"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."

"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"It is expensive."

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"The solution is affordable."

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

"Coverity is very expensive."

"I rate Coverity's price a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."

More Coverity Static pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	17

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

I'm using Acunetix to automate security checks. Acunetix helped me catch common vulnerability issues early and improved the overall security posture of the application before development, specifica...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?

I would advise anyone or any startup looking to engage in the security part to directly use Acunetix, as this will help in most aspects. I would rate this product a nine out of ten.

See all answers

How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?

We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...

See all answers

What do you like most about Coverity?

The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

Comparisons

OWASP Zap vs Acunetix

Compared 14% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 7% of the time

SonarQube vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube vs Coverity Static

Compared 29% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

February 2026

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

February 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

AcuSensor

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.

Invicti

Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise actionable remediation advice and context-specific eLearning help your developers understand how to fix their prioritized issues quickly, without having to become security experts.

Coverity seamlessly integrates automated security testing into your CI/CD pipelines and supports your existing development tools and workflows. Choose where and how to do your development: on-premises or in the cloud with the Polaris Software Integrity Platform (SaaS), a highly scalable, cloud-based application security platform. Coverity supports more than 20 languages and 200 frameworks and templates.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

February 2026

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Coverity Static and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Acunetix vs. Coverity Static 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.