We performed a comparison between WhiteSource and SonarQube based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: SonarQube comes out on top in this comparison. It is high performing and user-friendly. In addition, it is less expensive than WhiteSource.
"The dashboard view and the management view are most valuable."
"We use a lot of open sources with a variety of containers, and the different open sources come with different licenses. Some come with dual licenses, some are risky and some are not. All our three use cases are equally important to us and we found WhiteSource handles them decently."
"The inventory management as well as the ability to identify security vulnerabilities has been the most valuable for our business."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"The license management of WhiteSource was at a good level. As compared to other tools that I have used, its functionality for the licenses for the code libraries was quite good. Its UI was also fine."
"The overall support that we receive is pretty good. "
"There are multiple different integrations there. We use Mend for CI/CD that goes through Azure as well. It works seamlessly. We never have any issues with it."
"Our dev team uses the fix suggestions feature to quickly find the best path for remediation."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"SonarQube is good in terms of code review and to report on basic vulnerabilities in your applications."
"With SonarQube's web interface, it is easy to drill down to see the individual problems, but also to look at the project from above and get the big picture, with possible larger problem areas."
"I like that it's easy to navigate not just in terms of code findings but you can actually see them in the context of your source code because it gives you a copy of your code with the items that it found and highlights them. You can see it directly in your code, so you can easily go back and make the corrections in the code. It basically finds the problems for you and tells you where they are."
"The most valuable features are the analysis and detection of issues within the application code."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, easy to access, and they provide good training files."
"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."
"Mend lets you create custom policies. They're not too complicated to set up, but it would be helpful if they had some preconfigured policies to match what we have in Azure DevOps. That would save us a lot of time. It's tedious to configure the policies manually, and I lack the capacity to do it right now. Other products have preconfigured packs and templates, and Mend doesn't."
"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."
"At times, the latency of getting items out of the findings after they're remediated is higher than it should be."
"We specifically use this solution within our CICD pipelines in Azure DevOps, and we would like to have a gate so that if the score falls below a certain value then we can block the pipeline from running."
"Needs better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations and it definitely needs a better role/action model."
"They're working on a UI refresh. That's probably been one of the pain points for us as it feels like a really old application."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"Some detected libraries do not specify a location of where in the source they were matched from, which is something that should be enhanced to enable quicker troubleshooting."
"There are times that we have the database crash. However, this might be an issue with how we have configured it and not a software issue. Apart from this, I do not see any issues with the solution."
"In terms of what can be improved, the areas that need more attention in the solution are its architecture and development."
"There needs to be a shareable reporting piece or something we can click and generate easily."
"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."
"This solution finds issues that are similar to what is found by Checkmarx, and it would be nice if the overlap could be eliminated."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit. It's a little expensive."
"If there was an official Docker image of SonarQube that could easily integrate into the pipeline would help the user to plug in and plug out and use it directly without any custom configuration. I am not sure if this is being offered already in an update but it would be very helpful."
"It would be a great add-on if SonarQube could update its database for vulnerabilities or plugging parts."
Mend.io is ranked 5th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Mend.io is rated 8.4, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". 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". Mend.io is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx One and JFrog Xray, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and OWASP Zap. See our Mend.io 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.
