We performed a comparison between SonarQube and Checkmarx based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both solutions have intuitive interfaces and are easy to use. However, Checkmarx offers a more comprehensive feature set, including software composition scanning and a higher number of vulnerabilities detected. Checkmarx also provides better language support and more advanced reporting capabilities. SonarQube has a simpler pricing model and is generally considered more affordable. SonarQube focuses strongly on code quality and offers better integration with DevOps pipelines. The customer service and support experiences for both products vary, with some users praising the support and others reporting negative experiences.
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"The solution is scalable, but other solutions are better."
"Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"Strong code evaluation for budget-minded clients."
"The stability is good."
"SonarQube is designed well making it easy to use, simple to identify issues and find solutions to problems."
"Improve the code coverage and evaluates the technical steps and percentage of code being resolved."
"There are many options and examples available in the tool that help us fix the issues it shows us."
"I like the by-default policies that are they, as they seem to cover most of what I need."
"I follow Quality Gate's graduation model within organization, and it is extremely helpful for me to benchmark products."
"Code Convention: Using the tool to implement some sort of coding convention is really useful and ensures that the code is consistent no matter how many contributors."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"The resolutions should also be provided. For example, if the user faces any problem regarding an installation due to the internal security policies of their company, there should be a resolution offered."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"Meta data is always needed."
"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"SonarQube needs to improve its ease of use, integration with third-party platforms, and scalability."
"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."
"The learning curve can be fairly steep at first, but then, it's not an entry-level type of application. It's not like an introduction to C programming. You should know not just C programming and how to make projects but also how to apply its findings to the bigger picture. I've had users who said that they wish it was easier to understand how to configure, but I don't know if that's doable because what it's doing is a very complicated thing. I don't know if it is possible to make a complicated thing trivially simple."
"For improvement, this solution could be offered on Docker and the cloud and the support for this solution could be improved. Customizing rules could also be made simpler."
"We had some issues scanning the master branch but when we upgraded to version 7.9 we noticed it does scan the master branch but we had to do a workaround for it to happen. This process could be improved in a future release."
"We've been using the Community Edition, which means that we get to use it at our leisure, and they're kind enough to literally give it to us. However, it takes a fair amount of effort to figure out how to get everything up and running. Since we didn't go with the professional paid version, we're not entitled to support. Of course that could be self-correcting if we were to make the step to buy into this and really use it. Then their technical support would be available to us to make strides for using it better."
"Although it has Sonar built into it, it is still lacking. Customization features of identifying a particular attack still need to be worked on. To give you an example: if we want to scan and do a false positive analysis, those types of features are missing. If we want to rescan something from a particular point that is a feature that is also missing. It’s in our queue. That will hopefully save a lot of time."
"From a reporting perspective, we sometimes have problems interpreting the vulnerability scan reports. For example, if it finds a possible threat, our analysts have to manually check the provided reports, and sometimes we have issues getting all the data needed to properly verify if it's accurate or not."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Checkmarx One is most compared with Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas SonarQube is most compared with SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode, Snyk and GitHub Advanced Security. See our Checkmarx One vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
SonarQube depends on completely what you configure the Rules. You will have the option of the Profile creation and can be assigned to the Projects. If you configure the project --> under them services configuration it is good to go. Proper configuration is important in the Sonat Qube. Yes, Sonarqube allows developers to delint their code before SAST.
Veracode recently introduced it. But this integration at developer Machine integration available for only JAVA coded Projets.
About the Vulnerability coverage, both are the same. OWASP TOP 10 is equal to Sans 25. sans25 is categorized with one category number and describes under that subsection. Refer to this. https://www.templarbit.com/blog/2018/02/08/owasp-top-10-vs-sans-cwe-25/
SonarQube can be used for SAST. However, based on our internal analysis, our team feel CheckMarx is better suited for Security compared to SonarQube. SoanrQube is used in day to day developer code scan and Checkmarx is used during code movement to staging or during release.