SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Reviews

There are two versions: a free, open-source community version, and a subscription-based version.We use the community version, not the enterprise version.

We are a very small organization. In total, there are four of us who use this solution. We will keep using SonarQube, with some additions,  in the future.

Firstly, we use SonarQube to evaluate code for M&A projects. Secondly, we use it to detect vulnerabilities while performing security audits. Our third use case is the detection of violation of programming practices towards code refactoring and code maintenance. 

The results of exporting capability could be improved. Currently, exporting is a bit messy and fully dependent on the SonarQube environment. Sonar Qube offers REST API and you could export the results programmatically, but the process is quite slow and limited. You could extract the maximum 10000 results per query, which increases the overall execution process tremendously. I guess the majority of the users are based on Sonar Qube presentation capabilities, which is very restrictive for some use cases.

I have been using SonarQube, every day, for more than two years. 

SonarQube is stable.

I wouldn't say that isn't fully scalable. It's damn slow. It takes a lot of time parsing an average size codebase. If you'd like to scale up and deploy it on a cloud environment, it's a completely different scale of difficulty. We have done this but it's really hard.

As we are using the community version, there is no technical support.

I have used a wide variety of tools.SonarQube covers a wide variety of issues and it is well well designed robust framework.

To be honest, for me, the initial setup was a piece of cake; however, other colleagues and clients of mine have said that it's damn difficult to install it and extract the results, at least the first time. Initially, It took me some time to go through the process. It is not straightforward at all, it's quite complicated — it's a tool developed by developers for developers. If you are not a core developer, and I am not, it's super difficult to figure out the installation process thanks to the multiple steps involved. The autogenerated script, isn't functional, it needs some tweaking.

My clients report that it takes about a week to install it properly, and you need about two weeks more to configure it, let alone the performance optimization.

The installation should be much simpler. There are competitive tools that come with a self-contained installation and configuration process. It requires a time investment to configure it properly. . In short, it should come with a self-contained functional configuration set.

Overall, the initial setup should be easier.

Currently, I could configure SonarQube by myself. Only one person, knowledgeable enough, is required to deploy it.

Unless you use a tech stack that is not supported, use the community version; there are no hidden costs or licensing required.

Yes, we have evaluated plenty of alternatives nothing really comparable.

I would recommend this solution to others. It easily outperforms other static code tools — It's perfect as a static code analysis tool.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give SonarQube a rating of eight.

I am now working in a consultancy company and I work with different clients in different industries. For this reason I implement, for example, a delivery pipeline with the process whereby we need to validate the quality gate of the quality code. Meaning, the developer creates the unit testing and the code coverage, but grants the code coverage for a specific person. In other cases, we used to see what the technical depth was to see if if there are any bugs in the applications - the web application, mobile application and different languages, like, C-Sharp, JavaScript or Java, et cetera.

We deploy SonarQube on-premise on a Linux server and our pipelines were created with GitLab and Azure DevOps. Meaning that Azure DevOps and GitLab are the tools that do the build and release process.

We use Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform a little.

In terms of most valuable feature, when you compute SonarQube you need to install an extension. This extension depends on the version control. You need to install different extensions or work with a specific language to use as the extensions, all of which I work in with different projects.

In terms of what can be improved, the areas that need more attention in the solution are its architecture and development.

Additionally, the QA team also needs work in different aspects. When you think about the support area - when the support team has an incident they need to do a hostage. When they do that they do a commit in the version control. These commits trigger a new build process and this process needs validation from SonarQube because we need to validate the quality of the software product for different cases and different aspects.

I have been using SonarQube for about four years, with different versions.

SonarQube works very well, but I prefer SonarCloud because the tendency of the technology world is to think less about the structure and more about the process and the value that this process provides.

In terms of scalability, with proper configuration and deployment, there is higher availability.

I have companies with 20 users and I have customers with 100 users. We work with a big company in Chile and in some cases national companies, in other cases international companies. With the international companies the majority of them are more than 1,000 users.

I have a technical DevOps team. The majority of the time we implement the trial version so that we show the value of the tool to our clients and they understand about the pricing and the cost of the tool.

It depends on the maturity of the company. In some case, we have companies that don't know about SonarQube so we deploy it to show the value. In other cases we have clients with no SonarQube experience but they know the quality of the codes. In this case we provide a license. In the majority of the cases we provide the license or the subscription for SonarCloud. Other clients get access to SonarQube directly.

I have never used technical support from the SonarQube support team.

I work very well with the documentation you find on the internet.

The initial setup is straightforward the majority of time. It takes about two hours.

I work in a consultancy company so we do the implementation. We deploy for our customers.

We did evaluate other options, for example Q1 and Veracode. In specific cases we created different aspects with different tools and these were the top peers that we would compare it to - Q1 and Veracode.

In terms of differences, Veracode is used more for the security of the development and you can configure the gates while thinking about software security and things like that. With Q1, the difference is the type of the license. In Q1 you have projects and you pay for the line. I know that SonarQube was changing the licensing plan. Right now, before you pay for a license, you pay for fair lines that you extend. This is the difference between these three tools.

I do recommend SonarQube because it is an easy tool that you can deploy and configure. After that you can measure the history of your obligation and integrate it with other tools like GitLab or GitHub or Azure DevOps to do quality code analysis.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give SonarQube an eight. To give it a 10 and not an eight, I would like to see architecture development and the QA area improved.

We usually do the development in Java, and when we finish the development, we usually run the SonarQube tests and review the critical level, bugs, and security issues. We also review the license and the web issues and try to solve them, and then pass again through SonarQube.

We usually deploy it in the cloud, but sometimes we also have on-premises solutions.

It has very good scalability and stability.

We also use Fortify, which is another tool to find security errors. Fortify is a better security tool. It is better than SonarQube in finding errors. Sometimes, SonarQube doesn't find some of the errors that Fortify is able to find. Fortify also has a community, which SonarQube doesn't have.

Its installation is a little bit complex. We need to install a database, install the product, and specify the version of the database and the product. They can simplify the installation and make it easier. We use docker for the installation because it is easier to use.

Its dashboard needs to be improved. It is not intuitive. It is hard to understand the interface, and it can be improved to provide a better user experience.

I have been using SonarQube for two years.

Its stability is very good.

It has very good scalability. In my company, we have less than 15 users. They are mostly developers.

I have not used the support.

I have used Codestyle and a few other tools. SonarQube is similar to other tools.

Its installation is a little bit complex. They can simplify the installation and make it easier.

We didn't evaluate other options. 

I would rate SonarQube a nine out of ten.

We use SonarQube for determining code coverage, finding bugs, and searching for security-related issues in our development environment.

The code coverage feature is very good.

When performing the code coverage function, there are a lot of warnings that come up and you may not have time to solve them. You need to have the ability to overrule warnings or issues because it may not be possible to commit the time to resolve them immediately. If the product could assist us with fixing issues by giving us more pointers then it would help to resolve more of the warnings without such a commitment in terms of time.

SonarQube needs some improvement in its ability to find security-related issues.

I have been using SonarQube for the past seven or eight years.

We have not found any bugs or had trouble with stability. We have had some minor hiccups, here and there, but otherwise, we are fine.

We have not found any issues with respect to scalability. 

I have not personally been in contact with technical support. I believe that our team recently had contact with them when we migrated to the newer version, and we received help from their support agent.

I have also used Veracode and when comparing the two, I find that Veracode is better at finding security-related issues during the static code analysis. At the same time, during my PoC with Veracode, they did not claim to be able to provide everything that SonarQube does. 

I was not involved in the initial setup. However, I do know that it can be set up within one or two days.

We have an in-house team for deployment and maintenance.

I am satisfied with the pricing.

In general, I am very satisfied with SonarQube and I highly recommend it. If you are looking for full coverage and quality improvement then it is the best product to use.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have used SonarQube for static code analysis. I am using it to assess my internal applications.

I like the by-default policies that are they, as they seem to cover most of what I need. I see that as an essential feature.

The interface could be a little better and should be enhanced.

More support for integration with third-party products would be an improvement.

I have been using SonarQube for more than five years.

I have not faced any bugs or glitches in SonarQube.

I have not been in contact with technical support, although my teams would have definitely reached out.

I would not say that the initial setup was complex, although it was not smooth enough. This was a mixed, hybrid set up because every environment has its own applications to deploy. That said, it was not so critical that we were no able to manage it.

We have an in-house team in charge of maintenance. I have four people who are on payroll and an augmented staff of three more.

SonarQube is an open-source product that can be used free of charge. It is a cost-effective solution.

You cannot really compare this product to commercial solutions. However, the features that it provides out of the box are very good.

When it comes to other technologies, such as the Checkmarx of the world, they are better than SonarQube. This is something that they should look at as this project evolves.

This product is leading its class in the open-source community. It is absolutely a product that I can recommend. I think that digital organizations that have budget constraints should look at this technology, and then they can evolve it as per their needs.

In the future, I may look into deploying SonarQube in a hybrid model.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

SonarQube can be used for any missing components or component vulnerabilities.

Sonarqube has improved our best practice of pair programming that aligned with the CI pipeline.

The product has a friendly UI that is easy to use and understand. Especially, the admin's control panel is very good and It's not really difficult to get through the settings.

With minimal coding experience, we can build many rules that apply for each programming language, for example, CSS, and Java. You can easily set up rules. We are luckily able to do this with the community version.

With other community versions, you are not always allowed to customize the profile for example. With the SonarQube Community Edition, it's authorized.

Since we are using the community version, we have had some issues. For example, we have had some difficulties with the Single Sign-On (SSO) login. We tried to integrate with our Azure ID to have access to login, but it doesn't always update. We have to search for more forums, or in other communities for technical IT.

The documentation is not clear and it needs to be updated. As it is the community version we don't have team support and rely on the documentation that is available. We are creating more disciplines to do peer reviews on SonarQube. There is time spent on creating the tools but not the documentation that is needed for support.

It takes time to configure and create profiles. We need to improvise the way we introduce new tools.

We have only integrated the source code, but there are things that are not being utilized because it is product-driven and there needs to be more path and delivery.

Since we are now certified, we are utilizing more and we are creating an environment for security. We need more emphasis on the security side.

Support needs to improve with their response time.

There is a lack of local partners/vendors in our region and we are having difficulties finding vendors looking for another partner.

In the next release, I would like to see some automation scripts. At times by default, you have to configure some of the rules in the detection. You need some parameters to be set that define the source code, such as those required to eliminate a false positive.

They advance their product without addressing security or internal codes.

SonarQube has been in place for one year, but we have only been using it for the last three months.

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 40 users.

We have contacted support but it's not mandatory operating support and takes some time to get a reply.

We have not used any other solution, but we did some comparisons and decided to go with SonarQube because it was open-source.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It takes a week to complete the deployment.

We are using the open-source community version, but there are enterprise licenses available.

I am a user of SonarQube and I am responsible for the information security.

I'm the principle of security in the office. I advise others of enhancing and incorporating security aspects into the IP.

We are currently using the community version. We are not quite ready for the licensed version as we need more discipline for our developers to do it correctly. Our team is growing, now we will need behavior discipline of security, and then we can upgrade the license. We have passed the ISO certificate and encourage the use of tools for peer reviews for the developers.

It is better to have a technical review before deployment to production. Developers must review before going into production.

It's a great tool but you have to have a good project plan before being introduced to the tools. For us, it is unfortunate that SonarQube was introduced at the end of the project phase, and the team is still having to learn it.

Before introducing any application tools, know the visibility of the project.

I would recommend using the SonarQube open-source version to get used to it before purchasing the license. Before we go with an enterprise product, we have to know the terms and how things are done to run software quality. We had reached out to sales support and asked for the enterprise license as a trial but unfortunately, we had to halt the program.

It's also a part of corporate policy to know everything before it is published into the CI pipeline.

There are other alternatives that provide end-to-end analysis from the static, dynamic, interactive, and SaaS.

I would recommend SonarQube to be on your initial plan for perfect quality.

I would rate SonarQube an eight out of ten.

We are using the free version of the SonarQube product. Be warned if you choose this version because it is lacking some of the capabilities and support. It is for this reason that we are currently considering migrating to a commercial solution.  

The main factor that makes the product valuable for us is that it is free because budget is always an issue. We do not have to pay for it, but there are many cons to using a free product at times. It is a very good tool even if it is free. The dashboard and the media that it provides are all quite helpful.  

We are always using SonarQube. But currently, we were trying to evaluate some more tools because Sonar in the free version has around 10 to 15 languages. If we go to the commercial version, they support 27 languages and there are a lot of limitations in the resources for traditional support which is not available for the free license users of Sonar.  

Integration is there with most of the tools, but we do not have full integration with the free version. That is why we were planning to go ahead and plan to work with some other commercial tools. But as a whole, Sonar will do what we need it to.  

Integration could be better in SonarQube in the free version. It does not have any bug tracking tool, like Jira. They are not integrated with enough additional programming tools.  

There is one issue with the dashboard. The dashboard which is there is okay. But sometimes if we have to work on multiple issues the application is giving us errors. Say we have five issues. All five issues might not be very important, so in cases where there are multiple issues, we would just want it to give us a warning about the important issue. It may be we will get to work on the things of greater importance and over-all have a better solution and we do not have to fix all five. Something like that would be good to help us to prioritize things so then we do not have to go into all the issues and fix them.  

We do have this categorization for major and minor issues, but let's say, again, if there are five major issues. I would like to maybe get a score involving the prioritization of these. Out of these five major issues, we should know which issue should be fixed first. This would give us a backup for planning and organizing the prioritization. It is that kind of data that we do not get on the dashboard. If we could, that would be helpful to give priority to the correct issues.  

We have been using SonarQube for maybe for a year or so. A little more than that.  

The stability is good. We are not having problems with the product failing.  

The stability of SonarQube is good. The scaling part is the problem. We cannot scale to all the other products that we want to use and we cannot improve and scale to other languages.  

The language issue is one that we are facing. If you want to use some languages like maybe tool languages or something people want to use, they are not all available in Sonar. In the commercial version of Sonar they may be available. But the free version, there are some limitations.  

So we do understand the limitations of the scalability. The free tool comes with its own advantages and disadvantages and limitations on scalability is one of the disadvantages.  

We do not really have very much contact at all with technical support because SonarQube quite user friendly and intuitive. Technical support is not actually available with the free product, but we do have access to community tools online.   

There was this one issue that we had where we had raised a question in the community. We found that if we scanned our project with SonarLint and if we scanned our project with SonarQube, it was giving some different results. SonarQube was showing some issues and SonarLint was not showing any issues at all. There was a clear difference in the report. But when we Googled this issue and looked on the support web site, we found now that SonarLint does not give you the errors around integration. When it comes to SonarQube, it automatically integrates with other processes and scans your port to that. SolarLint does not do this in the same way. This is why SonarQube might give you some errors that SolarLint does not.  

So we are not in contact the company support. When there are times when we do have an issue, we see what we can Google or the SonarQube community. Usually, we do find out our answers.  

The initial setup is quite straightforward. The setup process is very reasonable as far as it is logical and very simple. It doesn't take much time.  

We are using Sonar, and we also evaluated Checkmarx. The version of Sonar we are using is the free version of it. Checkmarx is quite a bit different and more helpful compared to Sonar. There are a lot of features missing in the free version of SonarQube that I want to have that already exist in Checkmarx.  

Anyone considering SonarQube should initially start with a free trial and then start doing an evaluation. If you have a list of target requirements which you are looking for and you can accomplish these things with Sonar, then you can go ahead and use Sonar. If you are looking for something for diving more deeply into your application security, then you can possibly start with it and scale it or use some other complementary tools. If you want to see your reports, and how your development is performing, Sonar is the best tool, I think.  

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate SonarQube as a seven-out-of-ten.  

The primary use case of this solution is for static code analysis, and benchmarking our code standards according to our preferences. 

Our builds process through SonarQube and if it passes the required set of requirements we have set, it will then go through to production.

The most valuable features are the segregation containment and the suspension of product services. Also, the library that SonarQube covers is good.

The library could have more languages that are supported. It would be helpful.

There are a few clauses that are specific to our organization, and it needs to improve. It's the reason that were are evaluating other solutions. It creates the ability for the person who releases the authorized release, which is not good. We would like to be able to expand on our work.

MicroFocus, as an example, would be helping us with that area or creating a dependency tree of the code from where it deployed and branching it into your entire code base. This would be something that is very helpful and has helped in identifying the gaps.

It would be great to have a dependency tree with each line of your code based on an OS top ten plugin that needs to be scanned. For example, a line or branch of code used in a particular site that needs to be branched into my entire codebase, and direct integration with Jira in order to assign that particular root to a developer would be really good.

Automated patching for my library, variable audience, and support for the client in the CICD pipeline is all done with a set of different tools, but it would be nice to have it like a one-stop-shop.

I would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production. We would also need the ability to edit those rules.

I have been using SonarQube for approximately two years.

The stability is good. 

The branch advanced analysis pull request declarations, they are good and highly valuable, but they are not part of the free edition. They are only available as part of the licensed one.

Currently, we have 1.2 to 1.5 million lines of code. Certainly, if that increases, so would the costs expediently. 

We have 50 developers' licenses.

There is quite a bit of maintenance that is needed. We have a couple of people from our operations team to do the maintaining.

It is integrated with our CICD department and is being used extensively.

We do have plans to increase the usage of SonarQube.

We have used open-source origins of the tools.

PCI is an open-source solution that we used before, and we used Snyk as well.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did not use a vendor team, it was done by us.

The developer edition is based on cost per lines of code.

Now we are looking for a more mature solution and evaluating other products. We want a complete code analysis platform that is more mature.

We will either go with the paid Developer active license or solutions such as Checkmarx or MicroFocus.

The community edition is quite informative for engineers. The actual code analysis is not conducted on the GitLab flow, but the build pipeline would show the core quantity steps which is part of the criteria.

The trial gives you a way to implement the POC and check if it can be integrated with your own stack. Once the trial expires, you can continue with the same setup for getting the license.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.