We performed a comparison between Polyspace Code Prover and SonarQube based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"We have the software metrics that SonarQube gives us, which is something we did not have before. This helps us work towards aiming coding standards to empower us to move in the direction of better code quality. SonarQube provides targets and metrics for that."
"The most valuable features are code scanning and Quality Gates."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard, the ability to drill down to the code, user-friendly, and the technical debt estimation."
"There's plenty of documentation available to users."
"We use this solution for qualitative coding. We make use of the SonarLint plugin as well as the dashboard."
"SonarQube is a fantastic tool which saves us precious time."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"I would like to see SonarQube implement a good amount of improvements to the product's security features. Another aspect of SonarQube that could be improved is the search functionality."
"After scanning our code and generating a report, it would be helpful if SonarQube could also generate a solution to fix vulnerabilities in the report."
"I would also like SonarQube to be able to write custom scanning rules. More documentation would be helpful as well because some of our guys were struggling with the customization script."
"In terms of what can be improved, the areas that need more attention in the solution are its architecture and development."
"A little bit more emphasis on security and a bit more security scanning features would be nice."
"The product must improve security analysis."
"We called support and complained but have not received any information as we use the free version. We had to fix it on our own and could not escalate it to the tool's developer."
"We previously experienced issues with security but a segregated security violation has been implemented and the issues we experienced are being fixed."
Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". 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". Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar, Parasoft SOAtest and GitLab, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Polyspace Code Prover vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
