Checkmarx vs. Coverity Static Analysis (SAST)

If you are going with SAST process or want to improve overall security posture then go for it like integrating it with post deployment steps. If you are more concerned about proactive controls better choose other options such as pee-commit hooks and CI security. Also choose other tools for DAST and API scans.

Incentivized

Best suits for large scale and dynamic development environment. It may be best tool if you want to release your apps with less TAT. However if you have a CRM tool which is COTS product it can offer little help. Even then you should be familiar with what features of Coverity Static Analysis (SAST) are helpful for your development environment

Incentivized

• Supports a large number of languages
• Finds a large variety of potential risks

Incentivized

• It can provide security scanning dashboard
• Help detect vulnerabilities and recommend remediation
• Integration of devsecops helps speed up release cycles

Incentivized

• DAST capability can be the one where it does not support native use case of using OTP based arch
• API Scanning is something that lacks a bit due to not much customizations
• Branch wise reports for SAST is not available

Incentivized

• Coverage of integration with other security tools can be improved
• Customisation of dashboard to enable customer choice of tracking
• Showcase devsecops progressive tasks from SLA and violation from code scanner perspective

Incentivized

Checkmarx's usability is generally good, but it can be a bit complex for new users. The interface may take some time to get used to, especially for those unfamiliar with security tools. Once you become familiar with it, it’s effective and integrates well into development workflows.

Incentivized

Checkmarx is easier to integrate with development tools and gives quick feedback during coding, which is helpful for developers. Veracode is more focused on scanning and reporting for compliance, but it’s more complex to set up. We chose Checkmarx because it fits better into our development process, offering faster scans and more useful suggestions for fixing problems

Incentivized

Coverity Static Analysis (SAST) has wide coverage in terms of Owasp Top 10 vulnerabilities, various types of languages, backward integration. While other tools offer similar experience of code scanning, coverity helps in pointed recommendations for quick closure of vulnerabilities. The historical analysis of vulnerabilities is a good value add in understanding which type of code and which language is better in improving cyber security maturity.

Incentivized

• Great diversity of vulnerabilities covered.
• Quicker scans
• They are feature rich compared to other tools I used in the past.
• Dashboards are not customizable enough.
• High number of false positives take up time and sometimes make our report look bad.

Incentivized

• Helped reduce efforts of development team avoiding rework
• Increased security maturity
• Increased efficiency of the teams

Incentivized