We prove that no online algorithm (even randomized, against an oblivious adversary) is better than 1/2-competitive for welfare maximization with coverage valuations, unless $NP = RP$. Since the Greedy algorithm is known to be 1/2-competitive for monotone submodular valuations, of which coverage is a special case, this proves that Greedy provides the optimal competitive ratio. On the other hand, we prove that Greedy in a stochastic setting with i.i.d.items and valuations satisfying diminishing returns is $(1-1/e)$-competitive, which is optimal even for coverage valuations, unless $NP=RP$. For online budget-additive allocation, we prove that no algorithm can be 0.612-competitive with respect to a natural LP which has been used previously for this problem.