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

Coverity vs GitHub Code Scanning comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
GitHub Code Scanning
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
17th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 7.0%, up from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitHub Code Scanning is 1.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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.…
VishalSingh - PeerSpot reviewer
Traverses the entire network, scanning every system to determine which ports are open
You can use the tool locally on your system or in the cloud. I rate it a nine out of ten. It's a very good tool for people who want to start using GitHubCode Scanning, especially for software development or team collaboration. GitHubCode Scanning allows teams to collaborate by uploading files to repositories. For example, if someone is developing an application, they can host the code on GitHub Code Scanning. Other developers can then download the code for testing purposes. If bugs are found, fixes can be applied using the GitHub Code Scanningrepository, and everyone on the team can see the changes. Software developers often use GitHub Code Scanning for version control, and it's essential for CI/CD pipelines to work.

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."
"What I find most effective about Coverity is its low rate of false positives. I've seen other platforms with many false positives, but with Coverity, most vulnerabilities it identifies are genuine. This allows me to focus on real issues."
"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."
"The solution has improved our code quality and security very well."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"The tool as it is can be used for code quality improvement."
"The static code analysis capability in GitHub Code Scanning is a very powerful feature, providing the ability to identify vulnerabilities and ensure code quality."
"The solution helps identify vulnerabilities by understanding how ports communicate with applications running on a system. Ports are like house numbers; to visit someone's house, you must know their number. Similarly, ports are used to communicate with applications. For example, if you want to use an HTTP web server, you must use port 80. It is the port on which the web application or your server listens for incoming requests."
"GitHub Code Scanning has positively impacted my organization as it helps us recognize errors and avoid many later issues which may arise."
"It's very scalable, very easy to handle, and very intuitive."
"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."
"GitHub Code Spaces brings significant value with its simplicity and ease of use."
 

Cons

"We'd like it to be faster."
"The solution's user interface and quality gate could be improved."
"Reporting engine needs to be more robust."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"Coverity is not stable."
"The setup takes very long."
"The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins."
"Coverity's implementation cycle is very slow when integrating changes, especially for problems related to event handling and memory leaks."
"One area for improvement could be the ability to have an AI system digest the reports generated from code scanning and provide a summary. Currently, the reports can be extensive, and users may overlook details, such as outdated libraries, which could be highlighted for attention."
"At times it becomes very annoying as it highlights certain things which are intuitive. They require code coverage for those aspects as an extra overhead."
"When running code scans, GitHub Code Scanning provides recommendations for probable fixes. However, integrating a feature where developers receive real-time highlights of vulnerabilities when checking in or merging a PR would be beneficial."
"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 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."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a one out of ten."
"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 pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"It is expensive."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"GitHub Code Scanning is a moderately priced solution."
"The minimum pricing for the tool is five dollars a month."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
865,164 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
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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.
What do you like most about GitHub Code Scanning?
We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub Code Scanning?
The organization pays for the license of GitHub Code Scanning, but specific price details are unknown.
What needs improvement with GitHub Code Scanning?
In my opinion, areas of GitHub Code Scanning that could be improved include that a few things are not visible to us, such as where it stores data and which path. There is a separate team for that w...
 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity vs. GitHub Code Scanning and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.