Coverity Reviews

We have to prepare our software solution for our customers. So in our environment, my cycle. We have a seven hour phase and requirement for design, implement testing, And before testing, we used this tool to clean up our potential feedback as our use case.

.

This product improves functionality and efficiency.

We cannot find any issues in the early stages.

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.

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.

We've been using this solution for over 10 years. 

The solution is stable.

I rate it eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Several thousand users are using the solution , precisely five thousand software engineers. We plan to increase the usage in future because our software engineer, we are to in their software coding or deployments in our engineering team. We try to integrate this tool into some other tool.

The technical support is reasonable. 

I rate them seven out of ten.

Neutral

I was not involved in the deployment process. Ten partner lines are required for the setting up and launch of the tool.

I have seen a Return on Investment.

I rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Coverity to help with code security and code vulnerability.

The most valuable feature of Coverity is that it shows examples of what is actually wrong with the code.

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.

In the next release, I would like to have the ability to easily add screens to branches myself as a developer.

I've been using this solution for about five years.

It is a stable product.

It's scalable, and approximately 200 developers use Coverity in my organization. We have 10 administrators at present.

Technical support is good, but they do not have a user ticketing system. Therefore, we have to go through an to administrator to get support. For the support itself, I would give a rating of eight out of ten.

Positive

The pricing is on the expensive side, and we are paying for a couple of items.

My advice would be to look at other solutions and evaluate on-premises or SaaS options.

Overall, I would rate Coverity at six out of ten.

We have been working on a POC for this solution. It is an on-prem solution and we have 50 internal users. 

This solution is easy to use. 

The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools. The UI could also be improved. We also cannot directly report the vulnerability. We need to add filters to projects and only then can we download reports. 

I have been using this solution for three months. 

This is a stable solution. 

The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

We write thousands of lines of code on a daily basis, and we cannot say that our code is free because there are a lot of other developers contributing to the source code and things like that. And this process is prone to human error, defects in the source code, etc.

To automate detection, we use Coverity's static analysis, which has a low false-positive ratio. That's because Coverity's analysis engine includes 20-plus patented technologies. A lot of other static analysis tools use pattern-based analysis, but Coverity's is flow based. That's why we ended up using it. Coverity is helping us identify some of the critical defects at the early stages of the development life cycle. So overall, it is giving us a greater ROI and making our application more mature and robust.

One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited. So contributing Events lets you create that kind of a workflow. 

We also need a tool that works in an environment that isn't dependent on the built environment. You point it to a folder. Then the tool picks it up, runs the scan, and gives you the report. That feature is available in Coverity. So you don't have to rely upon build artifacts or developer artifacts. So these are the two key features we use daily, and we've gotten good results. 

Coverity's UI is the one thing that needs improvement. Technically speaking, it's doing an outstanding job otherwise. Also, they could reduce their executable size. Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker.

I've been using it for the past two years.

This product has been in the industry for more than 30 years, so it's pretty robust.

Coverity has a decent SLA. The moment you purchase the tool, you also get an SLA agreement with all the email support. They have email support, call support, as well as WebEx and Zoom sessions on demand. Of course, that depends on the nature of the technical issue. If it's simple, it can be resolved with a couple of email exchanges, but if it really needs some attention, they're happy to get on a call. They've even delivered some custom patches as well. 

I used CodeSonar a few years back. Both tools have their advantages. In any static analysis tool, the first stage is the instrumentation of the source code. It'll try to capture the skeleton of your source code. So when I compare them based on the first phase alone, Coverity is far better than CodeSonar. 

They both use a similar technique, but CodeSonar uses up way more storage resources. For example, to scan a 1GB code base, CodeSonar generates more than 5GB of instrumented files for every 1GB of code base. In total, that is 6GB. Coverity generates 500MB extra on top of 1GB, so that equals 1.5GB all in. That's a huge difference. CodeStar would eat up my disc space and hardware resources when I used it, whereas Coverity is minimal. 

In terms of checkers, both CodeSonar and Coverity cover a good length and breadth, especially for C and C++ programming languages. But CodeSonar focuses only on four languages—C, C++, Java, and C#—only four programming languages, whereas Coverity supports more than 20-plus programming languages.

Also, the two are comparable with respect to their plugin offerings, but there are crucial differences. For example, CodeSonar only focuses on well-known integrations, like Jenkins and JIRA, but you cannot expect all customers to use the same tools. Coverity supports almost all CI/CD tools, including Jenkins and Bamboo. It also integrates with service providers like Azure DevOps Pipelines, AWS CodePipelines that CodeSonar hasn't added yet. The plugins are available in the marketplace, and you don't have to pay extra. You just have to download it from the marketplace, hook the plugin in your pipeline, and ready to use kind of approach. So these are some of the major use cases, three major use cases I would say when you compare apples to apples with CodeSonar and Coverity.

Setting up Coverity is pretty simple. It comes with a normal executable. You just double click, follow the wizard, and complete the setup. It also have on screen instructions as well, which makes it pretty easy and cool. Deployment is a much broader question. It depends on how many projects you are trying to scan using Coverity and whether you are integrating this static analysis solution with your CI/CD setup, ID, bug tracking, etc. That all factors in to the total deployment time. So if we're talking about overall deployment, including bug tracking, integration, email notification, CI/CD integration, and everything, it took us 15 to 20 days to onboard 600 projects with 20 users, including all integration.

We don't have a lot of maintenance. There is a major release every quarter, and we get information on new upgrades, patches, and things like that. And we do have the option to not upgrade. The maintenance is mostly covered by the vendor itself, meaning they deliver the patches and upgrades on time. So I don't see that as a hurdle right now. It's been taken care of.

I'm not sure about the licensing. My commercial team deals with that.

I rate Coverity nine out of 10. It's a good choice. If you plan to use Coverity, you should read through the manual to really understand its settings. You have to tune the Coverity engine to get the best research and scalability out of it. A Coverity recently added some smart features that automatically compute the hardware requirements in your current machine. It automatically scales up. For example, it can detect how much multi-core CPU power it needs to run an analysis and how much memory is required, so it makes resources available for other applications running on the same machine. That intelligence has been built on. So initially, I recommend going over the fundamentals and fine-tuning it based on one's own requirements.

We use this tool for call scans in order to improve call quality. We implement testing and this tool cleans up our potential feedback. We are a semiconductor company and provide software solutions to our clients. I'm a senior manager. 

Coverity has improved our functionality and efficiency.

This product provides software security, and helps to find potential security bugs or defects with its checker feature. The solution also enables us to implement secure coding. 

We've found that there is a quite high false positive rate. It's a problem because we end up wasting time on something that's not an issue. The tracker reports too many issues that are not relevant. I'd like to see some kind of customization mechanism in the future. 

We've been using this solution for over 10 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have several thousand users. 

The technical support is reasonable. 

Neutral

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We use Coverity to scan our code and identify any flow issues in the code that need to be fixed.

Coverity is the most popular product for scanning the code. It's much better than other products like Clockwork, PC Link, and other similar products. It's a better scanning product than others.

The sales strategy needs to improve. First of all, Coverity will give you a low price; then, one year later, they will raise the price. So it becomes expensive later.

Moreover, Coverity is not doing good in terms of some specific features. For example, in the for loop, they can only check the point of the plus statement and cannot handle the sub-encryption. It can only handle the increase and not the decreased logic. So they will miss critical issues in some conditions.

In future releases, the price and policy could be improved, and also the script for the loop.

I have been using Coverity for one year and a half. We don't use the latest version, just a version from about half a year before.

There's not much difference between that and the latest version, just minor changes. 

It's very stable. I would rate it a nine. The stability of Coverity was very good. 

I would rate scalability a seven out of ten. 

However, we stopped using Coverity due to pricing issues. I don't have the exact number, but only a few in my department used it for security tasks. They were common employees and engineers.

In the beginning,  customer service and support were very helpful, but now I would say their helpfulness is maybe a six out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy. It just takes a couple of minutes. I could do it myself. Coverity gave me a document with instructions, and the installation was successful. There is a guide for installation.

Moreover, the maintenance of Coverity doesn't require many people. It was done by maybe one or two engineers.

We use the yearly-based license. I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very expensive, and ten is not expensive at all.

Overall, I would rate Coverity a seven out of ten. I can rate it higher because there are a few areas of improvement in Coverity. The first problem is the pricing. The second one is some features not performing well, like duplicate detection and switch case situations.

Our company has 500 developers and engineers who the solution for C/C++ core static analysis. One engineer handles all ongoing maintenance. 

The solution effectively identifies bugs in code. 

The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins.

More features could be included for finding bugs and analyzing code. For example, more information could be included to explain errors such as memory leaks. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I have not used another solution. 

I would recommend the solution if it includes more features. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for quality purposes. We also use it for security. That's one subset of quality. However, it's used for more dynamic behavior, such as memory leaks, et cetera. 

They have a good memory-related box and a static order analysis that's very good, especially around leaks.

We were very comfortable with the initial setup.

It is stable.

The cost is very high.

They don't have SonarQube compatibility with the dashboard, which is a big negative. They were actually arrogant for not providing it. We wanted to see all the problems in a single SonarQube dashboard, and we can't do that. They need SonarQube integration. They claim that they have SonarQube integration, yet it is not there.

We'd like it to be faster.

The solution could always use a bit more security. 

I've been using the solution for around 12 years. 

I consider the solution very stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

That said, when we are doing security analysis on bigger projects, it can be slow. 

To scale, you need more hardware. That way it is scalable. That said, it is already handling quite a big amount. We have a specific problem when analyzing security in a big project. It can get slow. 

I'd rate it four out of five in its ability to scale. 

We have around 200 people using the solution currently. 30 to 40 use it on a daily basis. 

We do not have plans to increase usage based on the cost. We're actually looking for an alternative.

Support is not so good. They're too slow. In contrast, Clockwork has very good support.

Neutral

We've used Clockwork before. However, it has the same issues as this product. They're more for C# and C++.

The solution was very simple to set up. The frontend, backend, and UI are very good and easy to navigate.

I'd rate the initial setup process a four out of five in terms of how easy it was.

It is an expensive solution. 

Their sales team is very arrogant. 

I don't like their licensing mechanism. Everything is on very unfriendly terms. 

There are other tools you can use that are free and open-source. 

In a collaborative environment, they are very tricky. When it comes to looking at the bugs on a web interface, they try to block them. When you discuss it with them, they are quite unfriendly. Once you got stuck into the tool, they know that it's hard to leave due to the history. When you get into a tool, you need the history since the history needs to be built up, and therefore, over time, you have a dependency on the tool.

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We're a customer.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.