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

Coverity Static vs OWASP Zap comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 15, 2025

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)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OWASP Zap
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
41
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 Coverity Static is 6.3%, down from 7.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 4.6%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity6.3%
OWASP Zap4.6%
Other89.1%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jaile Sebes - PeerSpot reviewer
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.…
Amit Beniwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies vulnerability discovery and has high quality support
There are areas for improvement with OWASP Zap, particularly in the alignment of vulnerabilities concerning CVSS scores. Sometimes, a vulnerability initially categorized as high severity may be reduced to medium or low over time after security patches are applied. This alignment with the present severity score and CVSS score could be improved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"Provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects."
"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 interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"The product has deeper scanning capabilities."
"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."
"One valuable feature of OWASP Zap is that it is simple to use."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
 

Cons

"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"The product should include more customization options. The analytics is not as deep as compared to SonarQube."
"The setup takes very long."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"Coverity is not stable."
"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."
"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."
"The product should allow users to customize the report based on their needs."
"The port scanner is a little too slow.​"
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"It is expensive."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"This solution is open source and free."
"The tool is open source."
"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
4%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
 

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 Business10
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
 

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 do you like most about Coverity?
The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about OWASP Zap?
The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?
OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.