Contrast Security Assess vs Coverity Static comparison

Contrast Security and Black Duck are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Contrast Security is ranked #27, while Black Duck is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0. Contrast Security holds a 1.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to Black Duck’s 4.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Contrast Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Black Duck users who would recommend it.

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

1,990 Views
1,055 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Coverity Static

Read 43 Coverity Static reviews

10,075 Views
8,362 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

Coverity Static

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

Contrast Security Assess and Coverity Static are both key players in the application security tools market. Coverity Static generally has the advantage due to its robust features and comprehensive testing capabilities, which make it favored by those prioritizing extensive security assessments.

Features: Contrast Security Assess shines with its real-time analysis, seamless integration in development workflows for continuous monitoring, and vulnerability detection capabilities. Coverity Static stands out for its deep code analysis, comprehensive security checks, and exceptional integration with existing development tools, giving it an advantage in rigorous security environments.

Room for Improvement: Contrast Security Assess could enhance its functionality by simplifying its interface and expanding its Protect features for wider applicability. It could also benefit from reducing setup complexity further and enhancing comprehensive training resources. Coverity Static may improve by addressing its lengthy setup process, reducing its resource intensity during scans, and enhancing real-time analysis capabilities to remain competitive.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Contrast Security Assess offers a user-friendly deployment process and proactive customer support, making installation and maintenance straightforward. Coverity Static, while potentially more complex to set up, compensates with thorough documentation and an attentive support system aiding in user experience.

Pricing and ROI: Contrast Security Assess is cost-effective initially, appealing to budget-conscious organizations for quick implementation. Conversely, Coverity Static justifies its higher cost by delivering significant ROI through robust vulnerability detection and enhanced long-term security, appealing to those who prioritize enduring security strength over upfront savings.

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

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess 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

Contrast Security Assess

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

27th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (30th)

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 Contrast Security Assess is 1.0%, up from 0.5% 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%
Contrast Security Assess	1.0%
Other	94.8%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

reviewer1605099

Director of Threat and Vulnerability Management at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees

We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications

The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of. Assess also provides the option of helping developers incorporate security elements while they're writing code. It depends on whether individual developers decide to utilize the information that's provided to them from the solution, but it definitely gives them visibility into more environments. It gives them an opportunity to remediate vulnerabilities well before production deployments.

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

"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."

"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."

"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."

"In our most critical applications, we have a deep dive in the code evaluation, which was something we usually did with periodic vulnerability assessments, code reviews, etc. Now, we have real time access to it. It's something that has greatly enhanced our code's quality. We have actually embedded a KPI in regards to the improvement of our code shell. For example, Contrast provides a baseline where libraries and the usability of the code are evaluated, and they produce a score. We always aim to improve that score. On a quarterly basis, we have added this to our KPIs."

"The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of."

"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."

"This has changed the way that developers are looking at usage of third-party libraries, upfront. It's changing our model of development and our culture of development to ensure that there is more thought being put into the usage of third-party libraries."

"It is a stable solution...Contrast Security Assess is one of the first players in this market, so they have experience and customers, especially abroad. Overall, it's a good product."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

"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."

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

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

"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."

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."

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

"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."

More Coverity Static pros

Cons

"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."

"Contrast's ability to support upgrades on the actual agents that get deployed is limited. Our environment is pretty much entirely Java. There are no updates associated with that. You have to actually download a new version of the .jar file and push that out to your servers where your app is hosted. That can be quite cumbersome from a change-management perspective."

"To instrument an agent, it has to be running on a type of application technology that the agent recognizes and understands. It's excellent when it works. If we're using an application that is using an unsupported technology, then we can't instrument it at all. We do use PHP and Contrast presently doesn't support that, although it's on their roadmap. My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."

"Contrast Security Assess covers a wide range of applications like .NET Framework, Java, PSP, Node.js, etc. But there are some like Ubuntu and the .NET Core which are not covered. They have it in their roadmap to have these agents. If they have that, we will have complete coverage."

"The setup of the solution is different for each application. That's the one thing that has been a challenge for us. The deployment itself is simple, but it's tough to automate because each application is different, so each installation process for Contrast is different."

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

"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."

"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."

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

"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."

"The solution could use more rules."

"Coverity is not stable."

"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."

"The product lacks sufficient customization options."

More Coverity Static cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."

"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."

"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."

"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."

"The solution is expensive."

"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."

"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 tool's price is somewhere in the middle. It's neither cheap nor expensive. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten."

"Offers varying prices for different companies"

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

"The price is competitive with other solutions."

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

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

"Coverity is very 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

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

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	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 6% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

Seeker Interactive vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

Digital.ai Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess 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

Contrast Security Assess

February 2026

Download Contrast Security Assess product report

Buyer's Guide

Coverity Static

February 2026

Download Coverity Static product report

Also Known As

Contrast Assess

Synopsys Static Analysis

Overview

Contrast Security is the world’s leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.

Contrast Security

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

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static

February 2026

Free Report: Contrast Security Assess vs. Coverity Static

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Contrast Security Assess 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.