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

Coverity Static vs Veracode 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
Veracode
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Container Security (8th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

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 Veracode is 5.0%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Veracode5.0%
Coverity Static4.2%
Other90.8%
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.
reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration
Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Coverity is easy to use and easy to integrate with CI."
"The product is easy to use."
"Coverity provides excellent compliance and other features, which is a very good part."
"The security analysis features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Coverity integrates with issue-tracking systems like Jira and provides email notifications, alerts, and other features."
"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."
"Considering the analysis part and the benchmarking process involving the product that my company carried out, the solution is good for finding bugs and violations"
"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."
"I appreciate Veracode's SAST and SCA features, which help to find open-source vulnerabilities. I'd estimate it's about 98% accurate, though some false positives occasionally exist. Our team has been using it for a long time."
"The source composition analysis had very good reporting."
"The most valuable feature of Veracode is the binary scan feature for auditing, which allows us to audit the software without the source code."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"I appreciate the integration provided by Veracode that seamlessly integrates with our CI/CD tools and allows us to integrate with IPA as well."
"Veracode's integration with our continuous integration solution is what I've found to be the most valuable feature. It is easy to connect the two and to run scans in an automated way without needing as much manual intervention."
"Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools."
"Veracode has improved my organization's ability to fix flaws because before Veracode, we did not even know about issues from the security side."
 

Cons

"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"There is an extra step in my organization that involves uploading to servers, which adds overhead."
"Zero-day vulnerability identification can be an add-on feature that Coverity can provide."
"Sometimes, vulnerabilities remain unidentified even after setting up the rules."
"We use GitHub and Gitflow, and Coverity does not fit with Gitflow. I have to create a screen for our branches, and it's a pain for developers. It has been difficult to integrate Coverity with our system."
"I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse."
"Coverity takes a lot of time to dereference null pointers."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Veracode can improve the licensing model as it is a bit confusing."
"Veracode needs to shift to a more modern approach because it still feels traditional in its way of doing code scanning compared with others, such as Snyk."
"The usability isn't good in Veracode. Sometimes, it will show a problem, but it's difficult to go into their tool and figure out where it is. You primarily use a web browser to access their system. It requires a lot of clicks. The static analysis is a separate part of their system from the SCA, so that's a bit difficult. They haven't fully integrated that. It's difficult for the consumer."
"The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report."
"Sometimes Veracode gives us results about small glitches in the necessary packages. For example, we recently found issues with Veracode's native libraries for .NET 6 that were fixed in the next versions of those libraries. But sometimes you do not know which version of the library particular components are using. The downside of that is that one day, the solution found some issues in that library for the necessary package we spent. Another day, it found the same issues with another library. It will clearly state that this is the same stuff you've already analyzed. This creates some additional work, but it isn't significant. However, sometimes you see the same issue for two or three days in a row."
"Scanning large amounts of code can be a time-consuming process and there is scope for improvement."
"The solution does not support Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"Veracode is costly, and there is potential for improvement in its pricing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items."
"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."
"The solution's pricing is comparable to other products."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high price."
"The tool was fairly priced."
"Coverity is very expensive."
"The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license."
"Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower."
"For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization."
"I think licensing needs to be changed or updated so that it works with adjustments. Pricing is expensive compared to the amount of scanning we perform."
"Its cost for what we needed it for was too high. It wasn't too high for other companies and it was competitively priced, but for us, it just didn't fit. We did plan to use it and increase the usage. In the end, it may have been abandoned because of the cost, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. So, even though we had planned on using it more and more, because of the cost and the business conditions of things, we didn't have the opportunity to really use it more."
"For enterprises, Veracode has done a fairly good job, but its pricing is not suitable for startups. The microservice distributed architecture for a startup is very small. I had to do a lot of discussions on the pricing initially. I previously worked in an enterprise organization where I used Veracode, and that's how I got to know about Veracode, but that was a big organization with more than a thousand employees. So, the cost is very different for them because the size of the application is different. Its pricing makes sense there, but when we try to onboard this solution for the startup ecosystem, pricing is not friendly. Because I knew the product and I knew its value, I onboarded it, but I don't think any other startup at our scale will onboard it."
"Compared to other similar products, the licensing and pricing are definitely competitive. If you see Checkmarx as the market leader, then we are talking about Veracode being a fraction of the cost. You also have to consider your hidden costs: you need a team to maintain it, a server, and resources. From that point of view, Veracode is great because the cost is really a fraction of many competitors."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is expensive. There is an annual fee to use the solution and the company is upfront with the pricing model and fees."
"Pricing-wise, I find it a bit expensive because it's based on the number of users requesting access to Veracode."
"Aside from the standard licensing fees, we also have to pay for a competent Success Manager."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 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%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

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 Business69
Midsize Enterprise44
Large Enterprise115
 

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.
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Synopsys Static Analysis
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Mega International, Thales Alenia Space
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Coverity Static vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.