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

Coverity vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional 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
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (10th), Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.0%, up from 1.9% 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.…
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The reporting feature is up to the mark."
"This solution is easy to use."
"Coverity is easy to set up and has a less lengthy process to find vulnerabilities."
"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is the wrapper. We use the wrapper to build the C++ component, then we use the other code analysis to analyze the code to the build object, and then send back the result to the SonarQube server. Additionally, it is a powerful capabilities solution."
"The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code."
"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."
"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"It was easy to learn."
"Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it."
"There is no other tool like it. I like the intuitiveness and the plugins that are available."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
"It is a time-saver application."
 

Cons

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"We actually specified several checkers, but we found some checkers had a higher false positive rate. I think this is a problem. Because we have to waste some time is really the issue because the issue is not an issue. I mean, the tool pauses or an issue, but the same issue is the filter now.Some check checkers cannot find some issues, but sometimes they find issues that are not relevant, right, that are not really issues. Some customisation mechanism can be added in the next release so that we can define our Checker. The Modelling feature provided by Coverity helps in finding more information for potential issues but it is not mature enough, it should be mature. The fast testing feature for security testing campaign can be added as well. So if you correctly integrate it with the training team, maybe you can help us to find more potential issues."
"The solution needs to improve its false positives."
"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."
"Coverity is not stable."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"I had tried integrating the tool with Azure DevOps, but the report I got stated that my team faced many challenges."
"You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing."
"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."
"There needs to be better documentation provided. Currently, we need to buy books, or we need to review online some use cases from other professionals who have been using the solution to find out their experience. It is not easy to find out how to properly do a security assessment."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"There is not much automation in the tool."
"The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional could improve the static code review."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool was fairly priced."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"Offers varying prices for different companies"
"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 very expensive."
"The solution is affordable."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"They should reduce the license cost a little bit. It is $400 per user, and it would be better if they could reduce the licensing fee."
"Pricing is not very high. It was around $200."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is an expensive solution."
"The solution used to be expensive. However, they have reduced the price to approximately $400.00 which is reasonable."
"The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees."
"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.
865,295 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%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
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.
 

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 vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.