SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Reviews

We find it very similar to Fortify and has the same advantages. 

The web interface is very good. 

We have found the solution to be stable. 

The solution offers a very good community edition.

There isn't a very good enterprise report. They also do not have an application report. We'd like for them to work on this aspect.

I've used the solution for three years. I've used it for a while now. 

In terms of stability, the solution is reliable and the performance is good. There are no bugs. It's not glitchy. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I've never used technical support. I can't talk about how helpful they are, never spoken with them personally.

If I do need to troubleshoot, I tend to rely on the community and search for answers there. 

We've also used Fortify.

I didn't participate in the installation process. I can't speak to how easy or difficult the process was. 

I use the community version of the product.

We are a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's mostly reliable. 

It is mainly used as part of the CI/CD pipeline through Azure DevOps and Jenkins to do static code analysis.

We have the enterprise version. In terms of deployment, on-premise is the best description because they have their own cloud, but it is not a real cloud. It is like VMware.

In some instances, the project stakeholders were able to implement quality gate control for code coverage, security alerts, and things like that. It greatly improved the quality of the product. If our test code coverage is 80% and a person commits a change that brings the code coverage to below 80%, that code cannot be merged. We've been able to improve the quality of the products that we produce by using SonarQube. We are using it as a gate.

It is a great tool in a situation where you have a dynamic team, and you sometimes hire staff or subcontractors from other companies. It provided us with the ability to implement quality gates in our project. We could look at the data and see which developers were producing quality code and which developers were not too worried about the quality. It helped us out with our junior devs. I know of a few cases where having this system helped our junior devs in taking their skills one level up because we had set up a hard quality gate.

My focus is mainly on the DevOps pipeline side of things, and from my perspective, the ease of use and configuration is valuable. It is pretty straightforward to take a deployment pipeline or CI/CD pipeline and integrate SonarQube into it.

A little bit more emphasis on security and a bit more security scanning features would be nice. 

It would also be nice if the discrepancy between the basic or free version and the enterprise version was less. In my opinion, some of the base functionality in the enterprise version should be in the basic version.

Currently, we have static code scanning, and we have the scanning of the Docker containers. It would be great if some sort of penetration testing could easily be implemented in SonarQube for deploying something and doing some basic security scans. Currently, we have to use third-party tools for that. If everything was all under one roof, it would be more comfortable, but I don't know if it is possible or feasible. It is a typical issue of centralization versus distribution. In our particular case, because we're using SonarQube for almost every other project, it would make sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the same case with everybody else.

I have been using this solution for four years in my current job.

I don't think I ever had a problem.

We haven't reached a point where it is anywhere near saturation. We haven't scaled it yet, and I don't know if it will ever happen. The way it is implemented right now is more than enough for what we need. 

We have used it in almost all projects of our client. It is a part of their process. It is used extensively, and it will be used for any future work that they might have where they develop any code that can be analyzed with SonarQube.

We probably have 30 or 40 users. Their roles are developer team leads, developers, and DevOps people. These are the three roles of people who use it on a daily basis and look at the reports and work with the system. At some point, the data might be shown to the actual client or somebody else.

I've never been in a situation where I needed their support.

I don't think that we used anything else previously. SonarQube was the first one.

It was straightforward. I wasn't technically involved in the deployment of SonarQube, but as far as I know, it was a matter of a few days.

We probably just bought the license and did it ourselves. For its deployment and maintenance, we don't have a dedicated person. It is one of the many systems that our internal IT team manages.

I don't have that data. I don't think that we've ever calculated that. 

My guess is that we have a yearly subscription. We use it quite extensively, so a monthly license wouldn't make sense. Yearly subscriptions are usually cheaper. 

In addition to the standard licensing fee, there is just the cost of running the hardware where it is hosted.

It is pretty straightforward, but if you don't intend to use it as a gate, it would just be a waste of time. You should invest in implementing such tools only when you have a clear understanding of how their results are going to be a part of a business process.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10. I've never had any kind of problems with it. I have some products because of which I have had a bad day, but I never had a bad day because of it.

I have used it in my previous company. In my current company, which I have joined recently, we don't use any of these tools. That's why I want to implement something for the company. I have the Community Edition of SonarQube. I am using one version prior to the latest one.

It was integrated with our build pipeline, and we had also customized the rules for the quality gate. For each release that got through SonarQube, it gave the results in terms of whether it was releasable or not. 

SLA was another use case. We internally had a rule that in case there are severity defects, they need to be fixed. If there is a false positive, it needs to be justified. That's the way it was used.

It assists during the development with SonarLint and helps the developer to change his approach or rather improve his coding pattern or style. That's one advantage I've seen. Another advantage is that we can customize the rules. 

I did an evaluation of the Enterprise Edition. It has the Portfolio view, which means you can roll up all your projects to the Portfolio level, and then it gives a visualization of each and every project's state in terms of security and other vulnerabilities.

It is very expensive. That's something that can be improved. 

I'm not sure if the latest vulnerabilities are being updated. When I compare it with Fortify on Demand (FoD), every now and then, they get all the latest and greatest versions for all these vulnerabilities as a rule pack. I'm not very sure about how that works in SonarQube, and how frequently they are updating the vulnerability databases and other things.

Their dashboarding is very limited. They can improve their dashboards for multiple areas, such as security review, maintainability, etc. They have all this information, so they should publish all this information on the dashboard so that the users can view the summary and then analyze it further. This is something that I would like to see in the next version. 

The portfolio-level dashboard is currently available only in the Enterprise Edition. They can have a similar dashboard in the Community Edition or at least in the Developer Edition. The portfolio-level dashboard is also very limited currently. There is hardly one report.

I have been using this solution for four years. 

It looks stable. So far, we haven't found any issues.

I contacted them once or twice. I am very satisfied with their support. I didn't have any concerns in terms of support.

It is straightforward. It takes very little time as compared to the other solutions.

It is very expensive. Its price should be improved.

I have worked on only two tools: one is Fortify on Demand, and the other one is SonarQube. Comparing these two, I would rate SonarQube an eight out of 10.

We use the solution to do quality code analysis for keeping track of security hotspots. We also use it to avoid the delivery of problems as the result of new code from our partners who may be developing software for systems, making improvements and carrying out bug corrections. These are the features of SonarQube of which I am aware. 

SonarQube is a fantastic tool which saves us precious time. Prior to using the solution, all our code analysis was manual and this was very time consuming. The increase in the number of projects, including those involving the development team, meant that it was becoming increasingly challenging to keep up with our delivery schedules. SonarQube helped a lot in this regard. So too, the wonderful tool from Eclipse, SonarLint, was very helpful. These solutions allow the partners who develop our system, our code, to receive on-the-fly analysis of their computers. This affords delivery of a much more reliable code, something which allows us to focus our work on more aggregated value operations.

I am struggling to come up with an area needing improvement. I am a big fan of SonarQube. I do have familiarity with the solution, but not extensively on a daily basis in respect of development. 

This said, we did have some trouble with the LDAP integration for the console. 

As our company is not primarily IT-related we are late comers when it comes to adopting new technology. As such, we started using the community version of SonarQube around eight to ten months ago. 

I have limited personal experience working with the solution. I have a colleague who works with me and she is actually engaged in its operation. My role is to provide guidance in how to implement products. 

She works more in implementing the installation of the solution, in deploying the projects on SonarQube. But, I have a little more context with this tool.

I am a customer of SonarQube. 

At the moment, SonarQube is deployed on-premises. We have an installation running in one of our servers.

When we deploy on-cloud, we normally use Amazon Web Services. 

I rate SonarQube as a ten out of ten, easily. I think its fantastic, a wonderful tool. Even if I don't use it directly, it frees me up to focus on other tasks in my daily routine. 

I use this solution for our staging environment to review the security issues before going live or into production.

I have found this solution creates more noise than competitors. 

The documentation and reporting extract can improve because other solutions are far more advanced.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. However, we do not use it as a SaaS solution, we use it for our staging environment at a minimum scale. 

We have approximately 10 people using this solution in my organization.

Previously I worked with Fortify and Veracode and I have found those tools provided much better because they are from a commercial solution.

Our development team did the implementation of this solution.

This solution is free.

My advice to others is this solution is one of the best in the free market in the industry and it is a good one to use.

I rate SonarQube a seven out of ten.

I like that it has a better dashboard compared to Clockwork. It's also stable.

Technical support and the price could be better.

I have been using SonarQube for seven or eight years.

SonarQube is quite good in terms of stability.

Technical support could be better. If we request support, it's a little bit delayed, and it's not consistent on email.

SonarQube price is a little bit higher than Kiuwan's. Kiuwan also gives a little bit of flexibility in terms of pricing.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SonarQube an eight.

We generally use the solution in order to do static code analysis.

What I like about SonarQube is the integration of the pipelines. It is pretty easy. 

The reporting and the results are quick. It gets integrated within the pipeline well.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is very good.

We found the initial setup to be straightforward.

The solution has a very shallow SAST scanning. That is something that can be improved. 

I'm not sure if there is any plan for having DAST, as well, which is the dynamic scanning. If they offered that in SonarQube that would be ideal. I'd like to know if there is a plan or roadmap for Sonar to have that included. However, right now, at least, from the SAST perspective, it can improve.

The pricing could be reduced a bit. It's a little expensive.

We've been using the solution for the past two years or so. It's been a while.

The solution is pretty much stable. Sometimes we have observed some issues when there are a lot of services getting deployed together. We have noticed some resource constraints sometimes. Occasionally the CPU and memory get affected. That was the only thing. It could be due to the resources that we have provided and maybe not the fault of the product itself.

I don't have the user count, however, from the application perspective, we have around 30 to 50 applications, which are on SonarQube. All of the teams that are managing those applications have access to that.

It is integrated within our pipelines. It gets used every day.

Right now we are not scaling the solution. It is just one server that we have. It is static of sizing and we do not scale it.

We do have an enterprise version, however, that does not include the support right now.

If we have any issues we're trying to resolve them on your own. So far, that has been sufficient.

We are also onboarding Checkmarx. We use both solutions.

We are not replacing anything. Maybe we will use both in conjunction. Checkmarx provides DAST, whereas this product does not. 

The initial setup is pretty simple.

I do not recall the exact amount of time it took to deploy the solution.

It does not require a lot of maintenance. It's just that whenever any latest version is coming in, we just have to upgrade it.

We did the installation on our own. We did not need the assistance of any outside resources such as consultants or integrtors. It was all handled in-house.

What we are looking at in the future is a bit of a price reduction. The pricing that we have been quoted for the next version is a little expensive. The pricing could be also a bit reduced.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

While we installed the solution on the cloud, we host it on our machines.

I would recommend the product to the companies or the teams who are building from scratch, and they don't have anything for doing the scanning of their products. That is something where SonarQube can be pretty helpful.

It's good for a very small company with a limited number of products, which do not have a lot of compliance and security-related requirements that big enterprises might have.

I would rate the solution at a six out of ten.

We use it for the static analysis of the source code to find issues or vulnerabilities.

The static code analysis is very good. In the banking sector, we have found several vulnerabilities and many issues in the source code.

If you don't have any experience with the configuration or how to configure the files, it can be complicated. The installation needs to be more user-friendly, as well as the interface, which could be more user-friendly.

I use the full trial version of SonarQube. I have been using the latest version of SonarQube for six months.

There are issues with stability. It needs improvement.

We have four members in our organization who are using this solution.

I am not able to evaluate the scalability. Once we go with the Enterprise version, we will know after three months, how efficient and scalable it is with large applications.

I have not contacted technical support.

The initial setup is straightforward. This solution is easy to install. It only takes five minutes.

We require a team of five to deploy and maintain it.

I completed the installation myself.

We are also evaluating Acunetix and will know what direction we want to go in the next few weeks.

Based on the testing, Acunetix offers something different. Acunetix has many features that are not found in SonarQube.

The enterprise version comes with many features. I have not been able to test it all because I am using the evaluation version. After three months of using this solution, I will have a better understanding of it.

We plan to continue using SonarQube. Some feel that it is unfair to compare SonarQube with other solutions as it has so many features.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.