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 Dec 21, 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)
6th
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)
10th
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 February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Coverity Static is 4.2%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.5%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Coverity Static4.2%
OWASP Zap3.5%
Other92.3%
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.
Prasant Pokarnaa - PeerSpot reviewer
Delivery Head - DevOps at Datamato Technologies
Effective vulnerability identification enhances security scans but AI-driven enhancements are needed
OWASP is only meant for two or three different types of scans. It is a tool which will scan the code for security for vulnerabilities We were able to convince the customers to really remove those rules when GitLab was able to show the results. Customers should be aware that GitLab is not just a…

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."
"This solution is easy to use."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"It's very stable."
"Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime."
"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."
"Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."
"It scans while you navigate, then you can save the requests performed and work with them later."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"It updates repositories and libraries quickly."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"The OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
 

Cons

"The setup takes very long."
"The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools."
"There should be additional IDE support."
"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."
"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"Some features are not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word ​list, or manually created."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"Reporting format has no output, is cluttered and very long."
"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms. They should expand their capabilities for broader coverage of business logic flaws and complex issues."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"They stopped their support for a short period. They've recently started to come back again. In the early days, support was much better."
"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."
"It would be beneficial to enhance the algorithm to provide better summaries of automatic scanning results."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"It is expensive."
"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"The solution is affordable."
"Coverity is quite expensive."
"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."
"The tool is open source."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."
"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"It is open source, and we can scan freely."
"OWASP ZAP is a free tool provided by OWASP’s engineers and experts. There is an option to donate."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
4%
Computer Software Company
13%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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 Business11
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.
 

Comparisons

 

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: February 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.