SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Reviews

Our primary use case for this solution is security testing using the FindSecBugs plugin.

This has improved our organization because it has helped to find security vulnerabilities.

The most valuable feature is the FindSecBugs (Find Security Bugs) plugin, which finds security vulnerabilities.

The product's user documentation can be vastly improved.

Better live process: More automated quality control in the lifecycle of development/testing/deployment/production. This includes the prevention of potential bugs due to ineffective code, as well as keeping a more unified style of solutions. This is thanks to standard solutions offered by the issue tips. It raises code maintainability as well as flexibility, to some extent.

Quality Gate: Automated rules for determining if a project is above or below a quality threshold. This is a concise "red"/"green" style, basic quality-control. This is integrated in the development and deployment process.

Issue Explanations: Documentation with detailed samples. Helps in growing technical knowledge and re-writing logic to conforming solutions.

Deep intelligence and smarter code analysis: There are many cases where a bug or critical issue is reported. However, there is very little chance of rewriting the solution in some other way due to several circumstances. The written solution is actually safe.

It requires advanced heuristics to recognize more complex constructs that could be disregarded as issues.

There is a manual false positive feature for that, so it compensates for it. However, time and time again, some issues become annoying, since they are actually not issues. This can be time-tested though and configured/fine-tuned throughout working with the tool.

There were no stability issues. I can't think of any serious issues.

There were no scalability issues, not as far as the development environments are concerned. I guess if there were tens of repos and maybe hundreds of commits per day, the analysis time would probably suffer. I suppose there is a way to cluster the solution somehow. I'm not sure. I never needed anything like it at the current scale that we have operated with it.

I had no direct contact with tech support by myself, but I haven't heard any complaints about it going around either. I guess it is adequate.

Previous to this solution, we used static code analysis using built-in IDE tools and plugins. SonarQube just centralizes the same thing and adds some extra layers to systemize and create a somewhat better pipelining for the quality analysis process.

IDE-related tools and plugins are still in use today, as first-in-line hints and helpers. SonarQube manages the quality threshold and it is part of the larger overall process.

The initial setup was not complex at all. There is default configurations out of the box in many ways. It was rather straightforward.

I have no advice on that part, as I'm not directly related to these aspects of the product myself.

Try it, get used to it, configure, and fine-tune it. Make it part of your everyday quality pipeline as gates necessary to pass before the green light to production deployment.

While annoying occasionally with its issue reports, it is actually an invaluable source of better knowledge and applying it in practice to your solutions.

Saves you bunch of headaches and debugging/fixing sessions at production, which is ten times as costly than using the help of this.

To create your own quality profiles and gates is really cool; you can apply different policies depending the maturity grade of the project are you dealing with.

Also, we use a lot the time machine tool to take important decisions to determine if the projects are going in the right direction.

Elastic search is really helpful and also there is a plug-in we use a lot named "3D Code Metrics" that gives us a quick overview about the general situation about the projects.

Also, the integration with different CVS', and the dependency search are nice and helpful features.

This product helps us to determine the maturity and quality of the coding of our software customers, preventing future crashes in the software. We get users used to developing clean code makes SonarQube a valuable tool. Also, we use it for our internal software development helping us to create a good quality software.

With the new SonarQube versions, the analysis time is increasing, and some projects are difficult to configure due to the different modules and languages that it uses. A few versions ago, it had a multi-language option which was really helpful.

I've used it for over two years.

The worst about this tool I think is the upgrade method, and it's really easy to wreck the database when upgrading. It would be better idea to make less versions, but make it easier and consistent to upgrade. Also, sometimes if you are using really old instances and you move to a new version it's possible to lose some information about projects.

Thanks to this tool we can improve old code were developers are not available anymore and display the projects filtering by different fields, we save a lot of time, and time is money.

Once it is up and running, we didn't find any big issues with the stability, but it's important to configure in the right way the properties file according with you system specifications.

I think is good, also there is a new forum named "https://sonarqubehispano.org/display/HOME/Bienvenido" for the spanish community who helps a lot to spanish quality assurance fellas.

I think is good, also there is a new forum, https://sonarqubehispano.org/display/HOME/Bienvenido for the Spanish language community which helps a lot.

I used a few specific tools for the PHP language, that tools were really powerful (Codesniffer, PHPCPD, PHP Mess Detector among others) and provide a good information about the quality of our code. Nowadays, I am mixing that tools with SonarQube, but in shortly, I am thinking of using just SonarQube. The reason is that SonarQube is including more and more PHP rules in every PHP plugin version.

After dealing with configuration files and SonarQube is up and running there is not a big problem to start working with it, SonarQube include some standard quality profiles that makes it easier for the beginners. Also, the option to configure your own dashboard with different widgets exists.

I have experience with both of them and the main problem is not how the tool is working, but it's to make people follow the rules and change bad habits. However, I think that's a common challenge for our QA guild.

Actually SonarQube offers a lot of free plug-ins for different languages, and we add additional paid plug-ins as well, such as PL/SQL, COBOL and Views, and our experience tell us that it is worth it.

Only one option we found competitive was CAST, but the prices and the functionality didn't convince us at all.

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.

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.

We are using SonarQube for scanning our services for issues as part of our IT department.

SonarQube has a lot of value, it reviews the basic coding standards and security vulnerabilities of code that help to reduce issues. 

SonarQube can improve by scanning the internal library which currently it does not do. We are looking for a solution for this.

I have been using SonarQube for approximately three years.

SonarQube is a stable solution.

I have found SonarQube to be stable. However, we have not tested it with more than one million lines of code.

We have a server that SonarQube is running on and we have approximately 50 people using it.

We have used technical support in the past but not recently.

I would rate the support from SonarQube a four out of five.

I have used Veracode previously.

The initial setup is straightforward for SonarQube.

We did the implementation in-house.

The DevOps team handles the maintenance of SonarQube.

We are using the Developer Edition and the cost is based on the amount of code that is being processed.

If SonarQube meets the needs of your use case then I use it.

I rate SonarQube an eight out of ten.