No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Coverity Static vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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)
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 2.6%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 3.1%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional3.1%
Coverity Static2.6%
Other94.3%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jaile Sebes - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
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.…
MH
Penetration Tester & Information Security Expert at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Dedicated browser and repeater have improved my proxy testing and manual vulnerability checks
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something like this because otherwise, nowadays we have to do it manually. Perhaps they can automate it a bit more. Perhaps they could add some automation to things, to see what we do manually, which it has the tools to do manually, and perhaps enable with a click of a button to do things automatically. I'm not too sure which, but I'm sure they can from a product management point of view, do things that we need to do two, three, or four steps manually regarding specific testing. For instance, we want to check something specific if it's this or if it's that. Perhaps to define it once and have it more automatic, perhaps.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"The solution was very simple to set up."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"If you have enough budget, it is one of the best solutions right now."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."
"It helps in API testing, where manual intervention was previously necessary for each payload."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"I find all the features of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional most useful, particularly the AI enhancement for results and follow-up for retests."
"The active scanner, which does an automated search of any web vulnerabilities."
"The Repeater and the BApp extensions are particularly useful. Certain extensions, such as the Active Scan extensions and the Autoracer extension, are very good."
"The most valuable features of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional are its ease of use and its cost efficiency."
"You can download different plugins if you don't have them in the standard edition."
 

Cons

"Their technical support isn't so good. That needs improvement. They don't address the problems I bring up. It's not a priority for them."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"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."
"The solution could use more rules."
"Coverity is too costly, which is why we are trying other tools."
"Even though I started working with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, I think I may have run the Scanner once, but I prefer to run ZAP because I'm more used to it and I think it checks many more vulnerabilities."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The price could be better. The rest is fine."
"Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version."
"There could be an improvement in the API security testing. There is another tool called Postman and if we had a built-in portal similar to Postman which captures the API, we would be able to generate the API traffic. Right now we need a Postman tool and the Burp Suite for performing API tests. It would be a huge benefit to be able to do it in a single UI."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"The technical support team's response time is mostly delayed and should be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"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."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"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."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
"This solution requires a license. It is expensive but you receive a lot of functionality for the price."
"I rate the pricing a four out of ten."
"The price for the solution is expensive and could be cheaper. We pay an annual license and our team has several of them."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is neither cheap nor expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
27%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Outsourcing Company
5%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
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 Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise35
 

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...
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The cost of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is reasonable at approximately $500 per year per user.
What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I'm hoping perhaps for something to make it easier, such as to define things where if a message or a response is such and such, automatically make a request that is such and such. Perhaps something...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.