Coverity vs Synopsys Defensics comparison

The compared Coverity and Synopsys Defensics solutions aren't in the same category. Coverity is ranked #4 in SAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 8.0% mindshare in the category. Synopsys Defensics is ranked #5 in FTT , and holds a 23.1% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Coverity users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Synopsys Defensics users who would recommend it.

Coverity

Read 42 Coverity reviews

11,969 Views
8,281 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Synopsys Defensics

Read 4 Synopsys Defensics reviews

123 Views
79 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Coverity

Synopsys Defensics

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Coverity and Synopsys Defensics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,485 peers since 2012

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

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th)

Synopsys Defensics

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Coverity is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 8.0%, up 7.0% compared to last year.
Synopsys Defensics, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 23.1% mindshare, up 12.1% since last year.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Fuzz Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Md. Shahriar Hussain

Information Security Analyst at Banglalink

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.

Read full review

it_user508521

Senior Lead Engineer - Product Security at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Helps us complete testing more quickly by eliminating many unwanted test cases

Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application, and from that we can generate automated test cases, but what happens on the target device, what is the reason for the crash, for that we have to do manual debugging. They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful. They can improve a lot on that.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."

"The ability to scan code gives us details of existing and potential vulnerabilities. What really matters for us is to ensure that we are able to catch vulnerabilities ahead of time."

"The solution effectively identifies bugs in code."

"It's pretty stable. I rate the stability of Coverity nine out of ten."

"I like Coverity's capability to scan codes once we push it. We don't need more time to review our colleagues' codes. Its UI is pretty straightforward."

"In my opinion, the most effective Coverity feature for identifying critical vulnerabilities is the extra checks, which offers deep analysis."

"The features I find most valuable is that our entire company can publish the analysis results into our central space."

"The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans."

More Coverity pros

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

Cons

"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."

"It would be great if we could customize the rules to focus on critical issues."

"The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming."

"The solution could use more rules."

"When I put my code into Coverity for scanning, the code information of the product is in the system. The solution could be improved by providing a SBOM, a software bill of material."

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."

"Coverity concerns its dashboards and reporting."

"We're currently facing a primary challenge with automation using Coverity. Each developer has a license and can perform manual checks, and we also have a nightly build that analyzes the entire software. The main issue is that the tool can't look behind submodules in our code base, so it doesn't see changes stored there."

More Coverity cons

"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."

"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."

"Coverity is very expensive."

"The licensing fees are based on the number of lines of code."

"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 tool's pricing a one out of ten."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."

More Coverity pricing and cost advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

845,485 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

33%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

22%

Manufacturing Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

Healthcare Company

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Coverity?

The solution has improved our code quality and security very well.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Coverity?

I do not know about the pricing.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Coverity

Compared 50% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Klocwork vs Coverity

Compared 6% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Coverity

Compared 5% of the time

More Coverity Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 30% of the time

Snyk vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 16% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 11% of the time

Veracode vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 10% of the time

Fortify on Demand vs Synopsys Defensics

Compared 5% of the time

More Synopsys Defensics Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Coverity

March 2025

Download Coverity product report

Buyer's Guide

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs. Synopsys Defensics

March 2025

Download Synopsys Defensics product report

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis

Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics

Overview

Coverity gives you the speed, ease of use, accuracy, industry standards compliance, and scalability that you need to develop high-quality, secure applications. Coverity identifies critical software quality defects and security vulnerabilities in code as it’s written, early in the development process, when it’s least costly and easiest to fix. With the Code Sight integrated development environment (IDE) plugin, developers get accurate analysis in seconds in their IDE as they code. Precise actionable remediation advice and context-specific eLearning help your developers understand how to fix their prioritized issues quickly, without having to become security experts.

Coverity seamlessly integrates automated security testing into your CI/CD pipelines and supports your existing development tools and workflows. Choose where and how to do your development: on-premises or in the cloud with the Polaris Software Integrity Platform (SaaS), a highly scalable, cloud-based application security platform. Coverity supports more than 20 languages and 200 frameworks and templates.

Black Duck

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

March 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,485 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.