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)
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
GitHub Code Scanning
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
17th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity is 8.0%, up from 7.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitHub Code Scanning is 1.0%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers impressive reporting features with user-friendliness and high scalability
The solution can be easily setup but requires heavy integration due to the multiple types of port and programming languages involved. Comparing the resource requirements of the solution I would say it can be installed effortlessly. I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. A professional needs some pre-acquired knowledge to manage Coverity's deployment process, but the local solution partners provide support well enough for trouble-free deployment. The overall deployment process of Coverity took around two and a half hours in our organization. The deployment duration depends upon the operating system and resources including high-end RAM and CPU processors.
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 is scalable."
"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."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The interface of Coverity is quite good, and it is also easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is its software security feature called the Checker. If you share some vulnerability or weakness then the software can find any potential security bug or defect. The code integration tool enables some secure coding standards and implements some Checkers for Live Duo. So we can enable secure coding and Azure in this tool. So in our software, we can make sure our software combines some industry supervised data."
"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."
"It help us identify the latest security vulnerabilities."
"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."
"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 Spaces brings significant value with its simplicity and ease of use."
 

Cons

"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."
"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."
"The solution could use more rules."
"The reporting tool integration process is sometimes slow."
"Sometimes it's a bit hard to figure out how to use the product’s UI."
"The quality of the code needs improvement."
"Coverity is not a user-friendly product."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"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."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"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."
"It is expensive."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"The solution is affordable."
"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.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
33%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
4%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

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 needs improvement with GitHub Code Scanning?
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 over...
 

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: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.