Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Coverity Static vs Fortify Software Security Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 22, 2026

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

Coverity Static
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Fortify Software Security C...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 3.8%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 1.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Coverity Static3.8%
Fortify Software Security Center1.3%
Other94.9%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

KT
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.
Diego Caicedo Lescano - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Innovation Officer at SAGGA
Enables centralized analysis and improves governance through seamless tool integration
The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console. You can centralize both static analysis and dynamic analysis, and correlate both analyses in one tool to get better results by combining those independent results from each solution. That is outstanding, and there is no tool I have seen on the market that offers these capabilities. I appreciate the interoperability with other solutions from Fortify Software Security Center. Because we are using Kiuwan, you can run Kiuwan analyses and integrate them with Fortify Software Security Center to get those results in a single console. That is a good console for centralizing things in one point. That is one of the best features of the on-premises Fortify.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This solution is easy to use."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."
"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."
"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"It's very important because they want to scan their source code every day, so we provide CICD integration to our customers so they can auto build and auto test every day, get reports, and fix issues."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"The main use case for Fortify Software Security Center is exceptional because we have governance and control through that console."
 

Cons

"The setup takes very long."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"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."
"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."
"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."
"SCM integration is very poor in Coverity."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."
"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"The support for Fortify on-premises is the same as for the other products. I would say the support is not good and I would rate it a three out of ten."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is competitive with other solutions."
"Depending on the usage types, one has to opt for different types of licenses from Coverity, especially to be able to use areas like report viewing or report generation."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"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."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"The solution is priced fair."
"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."
"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
4%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What needs improvement with Coverity?
The price is a concern, and there are a lot of false positives coming through. Support with Coverity is adequate, but they take a longer time to respond. The core support is not straightforward, an...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?
In my opinion, there are no areas that could be improved with Fortify Software Security Center. I would say it is a good product and a mature product. However, the SAST has many improvement areas. ...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
We have installed Fortify Static Code Analysis, SAST, in Ecuador in two customers. The Fortify ScanCentral includes three components: SAST, Fortify Software Security Center, and the WebInspect.
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. Fortify Software Security Center and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.