Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

FortiDevSec vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 30, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
SonarQube users rely on community forums and documentation for support, with official options being costly but enterprise packages offer good support.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.9
SonarQube Server requires security, integration, multilingual support improvements and enhancements in user experience, performance, documentation, and dynamic testing.
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
7.5
SonarQube Server offers strong scalability, integrating well with tools, though larger operations may require resources and higher editions.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
SonarQube Server provides free and paid versions, with enterprises opting for licensed features and competitive pricing concerns.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.2
SonarQube Server is praised for its stable performance, reliable operation, and minimal issues, aside from rare plugin-related concerns.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.4
SonarQube Server supports custom rules, CI/CD integration, code analysis, and continuous quality checks for enhanced development processes.
 

Categories and Ranking

FortiDevSec
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
25th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (35th)
SonarQube Server (formerly ...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (1st), Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of FortiDevSec is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is 28.7%, up from 28.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Mohammed Jaffir - PeerSpot reviewer
Scans codes in CI/CD pipelines and identifies vulnerabilities
In a customer environment, developers integrate their code with CI/CD pipelines. Most developers use cloud platforms like AWS or Azure and project management tools. FortiDevSec integrates with these CI/CD pipelines using agents such as YAML files. Once integrated, FortiDevSec scans the source code using our product or within the IDE. The most valuable feature is the ability to identify known vulnerabilities in applications by generating reports easily. This development gamification is very useful for developers. Compared to TechSmart and Fortify, FortiDevSec has similar features, but it is much easier to use because of its simple setup. SysTrack, for example, is not very simple. For the CI/CD pipeline, we only need to integrate a YAML file into the security process. Compared to other products, the tool requires fewer steps. We must integrate one file with the CI/CD pipeline, automatically pulling the code report to the repository. Using our API and username, it is easy to scan the environment. The tool's integration is also easy.
Wang Dayong - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages
The product provides false reports sometimes. It also fails to understand the context of the code. It reports that a line of code has issues without considering its relation with the previous line. The product should improve the report quality. While it asks us to improve the code quality, it would be good if it also suggests how to improve the quality.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Construction Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Insurance Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with FortiDevSec?
The only drawback I see with FortiDevSec is the lack of extensions.
What advice do you have for others considering FortiDevSec?
We have implemented FortiDevSec for one customer for a year. It has been implemented successfully, and we haven't received any complaints from them. Since it's been used by only one customer, if we...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Sonar
 

Learn More

 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.