SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Reviews

We use this solution in the development of our travel programs.

We use this program as a compliment to our security scans, in addition to Checkmarx.

The most valuable function is its usability. It uses a simple approach.

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 plugins are not well documented.

This is a stable solution.

We do not have any problems with scalability.

We have approximately fifteen developers using this solution, on the Java site.

We have not needed to use the technical support.

We did not use another solution, prior to this one.

The setup is not complex. There are some issues during setup with the plugins because they are not well documented.

Some of the plugins that were previously free are not free now.

We are looking for how we can integrate several products. We are using static code analysis, we are looking into runtime code analysis, and of course, we have a web application firewall. The problem with all of these tools is that you need a lot of maintenance, and you have a lot of false positives. So, we have tried to find the best solution.

I would suggest trying the product. I like its useability because it has a simple approach.

We use this solution in conjunction with Jenkins, and we have a two-week deployment cycle.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Its dashboards, quality profile, quality gates and CI integration features (like as build breaker plugin) are the most valuable features for me.

Personally, I have used SonarQube for educational purposes. SonarQube is helpful for giving motivation to a small development team (10 members or a little above) on code quality improvements with small efforts.

My team uses just two features - dashboards and CI-build-breaker - for checking code quality and the stability of our code base. For those purpose, SonarQube has done its work greatly. We have seen a decrease of about 25% of issues from since we first started using it a few months ago, and my team code bases are getting better.

The only thing I don't like is that they removed the design libraries and dependencies-checking features from v5.2. I hope they reintroduce these features in the future.

I've used it for approximately two years, since December 2013.

I have not encountered any issues.

I have not encountered any issues.

I have not encountered any issues.

I've not had to use them. I thinks it's online documentation is up to date, and it is enough to use them to solve problems and to understand features.

I've not had to use them.

My development team adopted SonarQube in January 2015 for code quality improvement, and had not used any code quality checking tool before.

The initial setup is easy. They provide a step-by-step online guideline to follow for installing it.

It has decreased the efforts of my team for finding and fixing potential issues which exist in our code base.

We are only using the free features.

Just keep following their online installation and plugin development guide.

When it comes to security, this solution is pretty great.

The static code analysis of the solution is the most important aspect for us. When it comes to security breaches within the code, we can leverage some rules to allow us to identify the repetition in our code and the possible targets that we may have. It makes it very easy to review our code for security purposes.

The solution is quite stable.

You can scale the solution if you need to.

In terms of solving for security breaches in the code, we are looking for different tools to help us catch things much sooner. Right now, we're not doing so well on this front.  Therefore, we are looking for some other options in the market. I'm not the one who is tasked with looking at the moment, however, we are actively seeking out a more effective option for the static code analysis. 

There are sometimes security breaches in our code, which aren't be caught by SonarQube. In the security area, SonarCube has to improve. It needs to better compete with other products.

The solution could offer some sort of alert feature. We've had an incident, where somebody removed the solution from the pipeline and there were a couple of code instances that were pushed and married with the codebase without passing through SonarQube. It would be nice if we were alerted to that. If the solution is off-line or turned off, we'd like to be able to tell so that we can decide if it should be on or if it was a mistake.

It would be great if it could support testing and configurations a bit more. 

We've only been working with the solution for one year. It hasn't been that long.

The solution is very stable. We don't have any issues with its reliability. It's been quite good so far.

The architecture that we have is not that big, however, from the scalability point of view, SonarQube supports scalability quite well.

At the moment, we have a hybrid working model on the vendor side, as well as on the in-house team. The in-house team has 5 members and the vendor has maybe 20 people, more or less. All in all, we can say we have about 25 people using the solution at any given time.

We did not previously use a different solution. It was always manual code reviewing via the most experienced team members who would offer guidance on adjustments.

Right now, we are not using the enterprise features of the solution. I don't know about the licensing as I was not the one who introduced SonarQube into the pipeline. I believe we are using the free community edition and therefore aren't actually paying any money for it.

I did an exercise a couple of months ago with my colleague. After this, I listed other products and their security aspects. I don't know if we found a solution that can offer us better features for security. I don't know if we will keep SonarQube in the pipeline or we will sell the product and get another product. I'm not sure at this point.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I believe we are using the latest version of the solution, however, I don't know the exact number.

I would advise others considering the solution to consider the level of security they need. If they are very concerned about security and the application is very sensitive, then SonarQube may not be the best option and they should seek out other products.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We have literally thousands of rules and they are of medium effectiveness. The problem is that most people bypass the rules or turn them off. But even that is information to us. The fact that they have to turn the rules off is as much value to us as the rules themselves.

Code coverage of tests is their most valuable feature. Code coverage is of no value if it's high, but if it's a low number then that's of great value to me.

I would like to see something around mutation testing included in SonarQube. I'd like to see some mechanism of quality which has real meaning. The problem in metrics is that they're correlated. I'd like to see how they can add a feature to detect genuine quality, instead of numbers that people can game. The number can be manipulated. There are a few ways to do this, and mutation testing is one of them.

I would also be interested in more security scanning.

Stability has never been a problem. It would have to be unstable for me to experience a problem, and we haven't. So it's good.

I don't really know how scalable this solution is, but I know we use it on thousands of projects, so it's probably good.

We have a pipeline. The pipeline currently runs 4000 teams through it, and all of them have SonarQube but usually with default rules. So that's pretty expensive. Now, we can't increase it because everything goes through it. We are evaluating what our best option is as we migrate our pipeline. We're migrating the pipeline and we're wondering what to do. If SonarQube did more security scanning, there's a good chance that we would use it more, in a different role. We're already using SonarQube everywhere, in some aspect.

It was years ago. They probably evaluated other solutions. 

We're evaluating the use of different solutions at the moment, but I've just withdrawn from that task.

In all the companies that I've worked with, nobody has ever had a problem with the initial setup. It takes time to set up. It's a big thing and you do it, but it's just a project.

We used people in-house to deploy. We have about 100 people in our pipeline maintenance team. SonarQube has not led to any significant increase in that number. It's just absorbed as a part of the cost. There are no dedicated staff working on it.

My advice is to focus on quality, not on tools. Work on the quality of your code and get a quality culture, but don't require the use of a tool. SonarQube is an okay tool. I'd suggest it as a default tool, but I wouldn't rave about it.

In all of my previous jobs, there has been somebody using SonarQube. They're usually very positive. I don't share that positiveness, but the reasons for that are that I don't believe you can have metrics of code quality based upon code analysis. I don't think it's possible for a computer to do it.

I don't rate any tool higher than a five or six, ever. JUnit is the only tool that gets a rating of ten. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is JUnit, I would rate SonarQube as about a five or a six.

I have used it in my previous company. In my current company, which I have joined recently, we don't use any of these tools. That's why I want to implement something for the company. I have the Community Edition of SonarQube. I am using one version prior to the latest one.

It was integrated with our build pipeline, and we had also customized the rules for the quality gate. For each release that got through SonarQube, it gave the results in terms of whether it was releasable or not. 

SLA was another use case. We internally had a rule that in case there are severity defects, they need to be fixed. If there is a false positive, it needs to be justified. That's the way it was used.

It assists during the development with SonarLint and helps the developer to change his approach or rather improve his coding pattern or style. That's one advantage I've seen. Another advantage is that we can customize the rules. 

I did an evaluation of the Enterprise Edition. It has the Portfolio view, which means you can roll up all your projects to the Portfolio level, and then it gives a visualization of each and every project's state in terms of security and other vulnerabilities.

It is very expensive. That's something that can be improved. 

I'm not sure if the latest vulnerabilities are being updated. When I compare it with Fortify on Demand (FoD), every now and then, they get all the latest and greatest versions for all these vulnerabilities as a rule pack. I'm not very sure about how that works in SonarQube, and how frequently they are updating the vulnerability databases and other things.

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. 

The portfolio-level dashboard is currently available only in the Enterprise Edition. They can have a similar dashboard in the Community Edition or at least in the Developer Edition. The portfolio-level dashboard is also very limited currently. There is hardly one report.

I have been using this solution for four years. 

It looks stable. So far, we haven't found any issues.

I contacted them once or twice. I am very satisfied with their support. I didn't have any concerns in terms of support.

It is straightforward. It takes very little time as compared to the other solutions.

It is very expensive. Its price should be improved.

I have worked on only two tools: one is Fortify on Demand, and the other one is SonarQube. Comparing these two, I would rate SonarQube an eight out of 10.

We use this solution for auditing our system.

The overall quality of the indicator is good.

I am not very pleased with the technical debt computation, it's a bit arbitrary.

The codification metrics could also be improved.

I have been using the open-source version, on and off, for the past few years. 

The scalability is ok, but if you want to process large portfolios, it breaks down. 

The technical support is reasonable.

The initial setup was reasonable.

There is a licensing fee, but I don't know the exact cost because I use this solution in partnership with other companies.

I have experience with Parasoft and other similar tools. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to another company.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. I would give it a higher rating if the technical debt computation was improved.

Our software developers use SonarQube to catch any issues that can be found by using static code analysis. My understanding is that it checks the core complexity by evaluating the coding rules to make sure of things such as the correct classes are private.

The developers are rejecting the idea that this product is useful.

Before you even compile, it can catch known vulnerability issues or patterns.

Our developers have complained about the Quality Gates and the number of false positives that this product reports. Their older code is breaking and with the Quality Gate on the pipeline, they are not able to safely release at this point. This means that they have to add a lot of things to the whitelist, so there is room for improvement in this regard.

We have been using SonarQube for less than six months. We have not yet onboarded it for production.

I have not seen any problems in terms of stability, although it has not been onboarded yet. Once that happens, we may see more problems.

We have not tried to scale yet.

The initial setup involved downloading the open-source code and installing it in a container. 

I was responsible for setting up this tool in our company.

We are using the open-source version, which is available free of cost.

We evaluated other open-source products and found that SonarQube was the best one of the set.

This product is regularly updated by the open-source community, although the changes are often project-specific and may not help in the general case.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

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.