Acunetix vs Coverity Static comparison

Invicti and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Invicti is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.4, while Black Duck is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0. Invicti holds a 3.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 6.3% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Invicti users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Acunetix

Read 33 Acunetix reviews

5,943 Views
3,863 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

12,008 Views
10,207 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Acunetix

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

Acunetix and Coverity Static compete in the application security and code analysis sector, with Coverity Static seeming to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive code quality checks and strong integration capabilities.

Features: Acunetix offers ease of use with interactive application security testing and robust reporting outputs. It boasts scalability as both a standalone and integrated solution, and it features a low false positive rate. Coverity Static excels in handling comprehensive code quality checks with a focus on security analysis. It offers extensibility through integrations with popular CI/CD tools and has a low false positive rate.

Room for Improvement: Acunetix needs to enhance its IAS tool, provide more robust authentication and authorization settings, and reduce false positives in scans. It also faces challenges with licensing restrictions and high bandwidth consumption during scans. Coverity Static could improve its user interface and provide better support for customizing rules and managing false positives. There is a significant demand for better integration with dynamic scans and additional IDE support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Acunetix offers flexible deployment options, including on-premises and hybrid cloud, but its support quality is inconsistent. Some users experience excellent responsiveness, while others encounter delays. Coverity Static has flexible deployment as well, with mixed support experiences. Users appreciate its one-on-one support meetings and fast response times, though reliance on resellers can slow issue resolutions.

Pricing and ROI: Acunetix faces criticism for significant price increases, causing dissatisfaction among some customers. Despite its initial value through add-on features, many find ROI in improved security processes. Coverity Static, while expensive, is priced based on user count. This could be costly for large teams, but its robust features and comprehensive development environment support justify the investment with significant long-term ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Acunetix vs. Coverity Static Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,370 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)

12th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (16th), Vulnerability Management (21st), DevSecOps (6th)

Coverity Static

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

4th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.2%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Coverity Static is 6.3%, down from 7.1% 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	6.3%
Acunetix	3.2%
Other	90.5%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Has enabled teams to improve security testing with smooth integration and high accuracy

Acunetix has a very good ratio of fewer false positives, so users don't need to retest everything. Acunetix operates smoothly with no interruptions required, and it performs at 100% efficiency without issues in scanning anything. The solution is excellent at detecting SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Acunetix integrates with every type of tool, including CI/CD tools, offering 100% integration in DevOps environments. The main benefit of Acunetix is that at the first level, users can address security issues related to penetration testing, allowing them to expose vulnerabilities and ensure all required testing is completed with very few false positives.

Read full review

Jaile Sebes

Senior Software Architect at Siemens Industry

Resolving critical software issues demands faster implementation and better integration

We use Coverity primarily to find issues such as software bugs and memory leaks, especially in C++ and C# projects. It helps us identify deadlocks, synchronization issues, and product crashes Coverity has been instrumental in resolving product crashes by detecting various issues like deadlocks.…

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

"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."

"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed at which it can scan multiple domains in just a few hours."

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

"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."

"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."

"We use the solution for the scanning of vulnerabilities like SQL injections."

More Acunetix pros

"This solution is easy to use."

"We were very comfortable with the initial setup."

"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."

"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."

"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."

"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its interprocedural analysis, which is advantageous because it compares favorably with other tools in terms of security and code analysis."

"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"Acunetix needs to include agent analysis."

"Acunetix should improve by further reducing false positives and providing more customized reports, plus better integration with newer tools such as GitHub and Azure DevOps."

"The pricing is a bit on the higher side."

"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."

"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."

"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."

"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."

"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."

More Acunetix cons

"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."

"There should be additional IDE support."

"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."

"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."

"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."

"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."

"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."

"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."

"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."

"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."

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

"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."

More Acunetix pricing and cost advice

"It is expensive."

"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."

"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."

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

"This is a pretty expensive solution. The overall value of the solution could be improved if the price was reduced. Licensing is done on an annual basis."

"I would rate Coverity's pricing as a nine out of ten. It's already very expensive, and it's a problem for us to get more licenses due to the price. The pricing model has some good aspects - for example, a personal license gives access to all languages without code limitations, which is better than some competitors. However, it's still a lot of money for us to spend."

"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."

"Coverity is quite expensive."

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

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

University

Manufacturing Company

32%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	15
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	14

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?

Most of the customers who use Acunetix are looking for security testing. The primary use case is performing penetration testing. The main use cases include vulnerability scanning, security testing,...

See all answers

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

Acunetix supports multi-user environments effectively. Acunetix is targeted for small to mid-size teams in a DevSecOps environment, making it the best choice for small and mid-size companies, offer...

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 17% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs Acunetix

Compared 10% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Acunetix

Compared 8% of the time

Tenable.io Web Application Scanning vs Acunetix

Compared 5% of the time

More Acunetix Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity Static

Compared 41% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity Static

Compared 8% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

CodeSonar vs Coverity Static

Compared 6% of the time

More Coverity Static Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Acunetix

September 2025

Download Acunetix product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

September 2025

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

September 2025

Free Report: Acunetix vs. Coverity Static

Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Coverity Static and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,370 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.