Coverity Scan vs Infer

Overview

Coverity Scan

Stacks50

Followers185

Votes0

Infer

Stacks18

Followers69

Votes0

GitHub Stars15.4K

Forks2.1K

Coverity Scan vs Infer: What are the differences?

Static Analysis Approach: Coverity Scan uses a static analysis technique that focuses on identifying defects through code analysis, while Infer uses a formal verification approach that checks for null pointer dereference, resource leaks, and concurrency issues.
Support for Programming Languages: Coverity Scan supports a wide range of programming languages such as C, C++, Java, and C#, while Infer is mainly focused on analyzing programs written in C, Java, and Objective-C.
Tool Integration: Coverity Scan integrates seamlessly with various build systems and development environments, making it easier to incorporate into existing development workflows, whereas Infer requires more manual effort in setting up and integrating with the development environment.
Customizability: Coverity Scan is known for its comprehensive set of customizable rules and configurations that developers can use to tailor the analysis to their specific needs, while Infer provides fewer customization options but focuses on deep analysis of specific types of defects.
Scalability: Coverity Scan is suitable for large-scale projects with complex codebases due to its ability to handle extensive code analysis, whereas Infer is more lightweight and suitable for smaller projects or specific modules within larger codebases.
Community Support: Coverity Scan has a larger user community and more extensive documentation available, making it easier to find resources and solutions to common issues, while Infer has a smaller but dedicated user base with focused support for specific types of defects.

In Summary, Coverity Scan and Infer differ in their static analysis approach, language support, tool integration, customizability, scalability, and community support.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Coverity Scan	Infer
Coverity's implementation of static analysis can follow all the possible paths of execution through source code (including interprocedurally) and find defects and vulnerabilities caused by the conjunction of statements that are not errors independent of each other.	Facebook Infer is a static analysis tool - if you give Infer some Objective-C, Java, or C code, it produces a list of potential bugs. Anyone can use Infer to intercept critical bugs before they have shipped to people's phones, and help prevent crashes or poor performance.
Test every line of code and potential execution path.;The root cause of each defect is clearly explained, making it easy to fix bugs;Integrates with GitHub and Travis CI	Android and Java - Infer reports null pointer exceptions and resource leaks in Android and Java code.;iOS - In addition to this, it reports memory leak problems in iOS and C code.
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 15.4K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 2.1K
Stacks 50	Stacks 18
Followers 185	Followers 69
Votes 0	Votes 0
Integrations
GitHub Travis CI	Cocoa Touch (iOS) Android SDK Java Objective-C

What are some alternatives to Coverity Scan, Infer?

Code Climate

After each Git push, Code Climate analyzes your code for complexity, duplication, and common smells to determine changes in quality and surface technical debt hotspots.

Codacy

Codacy automates code reviews and monitors code quality on every commit and pull request on more than 40 programming languages reporting back the impact of every commit or PR, issues concerning code style, best practices and security.

Phabricator

Phabricator is a collection of open source web applications that help software companies build better software.

PullReview

PullReview helps Ruby and Rails developers to develop new features cleanly, on-time, and with confidence by automatically reviewing their code.

Gerrit Code Review

Gerrit is a self-hosted pre-commit code review tool. It serves as a Git hosting server with option to comment incoming changes. It is highly configurable and extensible with default guarding policies, webhooks, project access control and more.

SonarQube

SonarQube provides an overview of the overall health of your source code and even more importantly, it highlights issues found on new code. With a Quality Gate set on your project, you will simply fix the Leak and start mechanically improving.

RuboCop

RuboCop is a Ruby static code analyzer. Out of the box it will enforce many of the guidelines outlined in the community Ruby Style Guide.

CodeFactor.io

CodeFactor.io automatically and continuously tracks code quality with every GitHub or BitBucket commit and pull request, helping software developers save time in code reviews and efficiently tackle technical debt.

ESLint

A pluggable and configurable linter tool for identifying and reporting on patterns in JavaScript. Maintain your code quality with ease.

Amazon CodeGuru

It is a machine learning service for automated code reviews and application performance recommendations. It helps you find the most expensive lines of code that hurt application performance and keep you up all night troubleshooting, then gives you specific recommendations to fix or improve your code.

Related Comparisons

Coverity Scan vs Infer: What are the differences?

Static Analysis Approach: Coverity Scan uses a static analysis technique that focuses on identifying defects through code analysis, while Infer uses a formal verification approach that checks for null pointer dereference, resource leaks, and concurrency issues.
Support for Programming Languages: Coverity Scan supports a wide range of programming languages such as C, C++, Java, and C#, while Infer is mainly focused on analyzing programs written in C, Java, and Objective-C.
Tool Integration: Coverity Scan integrates seamlessly with various build systems and development environments, making it easier to incorporate into existing development workflows, whereas Infer requires more manual effort in setting up and integrating with the development environment.
Customizability: Coverity Scan is known for its comprehensive set of customizable rules and configurations that developers can use to tailor the analysis to their specific needs, while Infer provides fewer customization options but focuses on deep analysis of specific types of defects.
Scalability: Coverity Scan is suitable for large-scale projects with complex codebases due to its ability to handle extensive code analysis, whereas Infer is more lightweight and suitable for smaller projects or specific modules within larger codebases.
Community Support: Coverity Scan has a larger user community and more extensive documentation available, making it easier to find resources and solutions to common issues, while Infer has a smaller but dedicated user base with focused support for specific types of defects.

In Summary, Coverity Scan and Infer differ in their static analysis approach, language support, tool integration, customizability, scalability, and community support.

Coverity Scan vs Infer

Overview