SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Reviews

We primarily use this solution for code quality purposes. We have a CICD environment, without a lot of manual steps.

This solution figures out and tells you when there are code quality issues.

The quantification and reporting features are really good. 

The security portion of this solution needs to be improved. They do have a few rules, but I don't think that they are of much use because you cannot position it as a security scanner. I think that there is a lot more that can be done in the security space. I would like to see, for example, more security updates as part of the scan.

The reporting is good, but I am not able to download a specific report as a PDF, so downloading reports is something that should be looked at.

We would like to be able to perform differential scans for a few modules or a few lines, rather than for the whole source code each time. 

We have been using this for quite a number of applications, and its stability is very good. The scan time is very fast because it is a text-based scan.

We have not had any problems with scalability. We have a big organization with a lot of applications and all of our critical applications are on this platform. We are planning to increase the scope by adding less critical applications over time.

We were using some other products, but not on an enterprise level. There were several locally developed applications, but when we tried to consolidate all of these into an enterprise-level solution, we opted for this.

The initial setup was not complex. It is pretty simple and straightforward.

The costs for this application, for the kind of job it does, are pretty decent.

This product is good but it is not meant to be a single solution for all issues.

If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool. If you want security to be part of it then you may need multiple tools. Overall, my advice is to use this tool in areas where it is strong.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

Primary use is code standards, or code quality. It's worked out okay. I find it is light on the security side though.

We brought into our CI pipeline to see if we could help our developers fix issues and identify issues sooner.

• Higher code quality. 
• Faster to market.
• Less errors.
  

• The issues it identifies.
• How easily it ties into our continuous integration pipeline.
• It is very good at identifying technical debt.

As far as code quality goes, I like it. It doesn't seem to do well when it comes to vulnerabilities on the security side. It may be that we don't have the right plugins, or we don't have the right add-ons.

It seems to be very stable. I haven't had many issues with it. 

We just upgraded to the 6.7 version, which has been performing well.

We haven't had any issues to date. We haven't had a huge number of projects to date. We're slowly slowing the uptake from some of our internal teams, but it seems to be fairly scalable.

I haven't had to use technical support.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward.

The price point on SonarQube is good.

We are looking into corporate security and a couple different tooling options for doing data code analysis and security scanning.

We have looked into a few options: 

• We are looking at IBM AppScan.
• I am going to be running a small PoC next week with Veracode. I started doing a bit of research on Veracode, and I saw how it ties in compared with SonarQube.

We are looking at using another product to compliment it for security reasons.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Usability of the product
• Responsiveness when we have issues.

We are application support vendors, and we develop applications for our clients. To maintain code quality, we were using SonarQube, and then we presented that to our clients in order to purchase that. That's where this whole thing got started. 

One thing that we were using it majorly for was our work quality. It usually helped us in automating the review and making it more gate-oriented. Recently we were able to see the latest features like security hotspots and all that.

We were trying to serve two purposes; work quality and code security, with one tool. That's where our inclination was more towards Sonar because other tools generally target code security only.

I like that it helps us maintain our work quality and code security.

Code security could be better. They are already focusing on it, but I see a lot of improvement opportunities over there. I can see a lot of false positives in terms of security. They need to make the tests more accurate so that the false positives are not detected so frequently. It would also help if they provided us with an installer. 

I have been using SonarQube for about three or four years. However, in this organization, we have been using it for the last year or so.

In Community Edition, I don't think that we have enough scalability options because it runs only on one instance, plus it runs only one scan at a time. It doesn't even provide a settings capability where multiple scans are running simultaneously. That's why we want to move to the Enterprise Edition because it gives you a possibility of parallel analysis of reports, and that could speed up things.

We're using the Community Edition, and I think support comes only with the paid version. But we had an initial conversation with them, and we got our answers clarified. I certainly look forward to getting in touch with somebody from SonarCloud because I hear that they are separate entities. SonarSource people don't talk about SonarCloud. We want a contact whom we can speak to regarding our security-related concerns, privacy-related concerns, and how we can secure our code in their environment.

The initial setup on-premise may take a while because you have to procure all the servers and do the reconfiguration yourself. But I think they have provided their steps very elaborately, and that certainly helps. However, you need to make an effort to set it up. It doesn't come with an installer, and you have to download it, extract it, then configure it to run on your server automatically with every server system. If they could have provided us with an installer setup, it could have made it much easier.

We're using the Community Edition, and we don't pay for anything.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SonarQube a nine.

We usually do the development in Java, and when we finish the development, we usually run the SonarQube tests and review the critical level, bugs, and security issues. We also review the license and the web issues and try to solve them, and then pass again through SonarQube.

We usually deploy it in the cloud, but sometimes we also have on-premises solutions.

It has very good scalability and stability.

We also use Fortify, which is another tool to find security errors. Fortify is a better security tool. It is better than SonarQube in finding errors. Sometimes, SonarQube doesn't find some of the errors that Fortify is able to find. Fortify also has a community, which SonarQube doesn't have.

Its installation is a little bit complex. We need to install a database, install the product, and specify the version of the database and the product. They can simplify the installation and make it easier. We use docker for the installation because it is easier to use.

Its dashboard needs to be improved. It is not intuitive. It is hard to understand the interface, and it can be improved to provide a better user experience.

I have been using SonarQube for two years.

Its stability is very good.

It has very good scalability. In my company, we have less than 15 users. They are mostly developers.

I have not used the support.

I have used Codestyle and a few other tools. SonarQube is similar to other tools.

Its installation is a little bit complex. They can simplify the installation and make it easier.

We didn't evaluate other options. 

I would rate SonarQube a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide more coverage and reduce the reliance on code reviews alone. It also provides confidence and helps begin a path towards continuous improvement.

This has improved our process because it allows us to pick up on a lot of the smaller best practices that might otherwise be missed, in addition to ensuring code quality is not compromised between builds.

The most valuable features are the wide array of languages, multiple languages per project, the breakdown of bugs, and the description of vulnerabilities and code smells (best practices).

A robust credential scanner would be a huge bonus as it would remove the need for yet another niche product with additional cost, also gives the benefit of a single pane of glass view, although we still need white source bolt for 3rd part library scanning. The integration into docker builds could be better as pulling the latest version of the scanner, setting the path and then invoking the scan is an extra overhead to manage between versions of the scanner. An apt-get and scan start with the key passed as a variable would be a nicer implementation. Have not looked into SSL for the management page yet but hoping that goes smoothly.

We have only used this solution for a few weeks, but so far we have had no issues at all.

My impression of the scalability is good, as it appears that it can support a much larger number of projects than we have.

We have had no need to contact technical support.

I did not use another solution prior to this one.

The setup took a bit of work, but that was because we were combining Docker, Kubernetes, Azure Key Vault, and the Azure PaaS SQL Server.

We took care of the implementation in-house.

In terms of ROI, it is difficult to put a number against code quality. For the cost of hosting it, I would say very good if you do not have a solution to start with.

A self-hosted SonarQube on a Kubernetes cluster is very cost efficient if you already have the infrastructure and don’t need the premium features.

We evaluated the Checkmark Software Exposure Platform and Veracode, but they were expensive for a first go.

The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations. 

SonarQube needs to improve its ease of use, integration with third-party platforms, and scalability. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate the tool's stability a six out of ten. 

My company has 150 users for SonarQube. 

The tool's deployment is complex. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. 

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten and would recommend it to others. 

We are using SonarQube for code reviews. 

Code quality improvement, Secure coding pracitices 

The most valuable feature of SonarQube I have found to be the configuration that has allowed us to can make adjusts to the demands of the code review. It gives a specified classification regarding the skill, prioritization, and it is easy for me to review and make my code.

NA

I have been using SonarQube for approximately five years.

The solution is stable.

I have not needed to use technical support.

Positive

I have used some tools previously, such as Eclipse and Checkmarx. I used some tools directly linked with Eclipse, but SonarQube is much better. It has a better ability to link with Eclipse as well as the standalone features for a code review I have found the SonarQube most efficient.

I deployed SonarQube on my laptop. I found it to be straightforward and easy. I wanted my technical team to do implement it but since they didn't have time I took the initiative and did it myself. I am not exactly from a technical background, and it was very easy for me.

The time it took for me to do the whole process was approximately two hours because I had to download, read the documentation, and do the configurations.

The solution does not require any maintenance.

SonarQube fits my purpose. It doesn't cause any hassles for me.

I rate SonarQube a nine out of ten.

We are a $4 billion valuation large company and we use the solution for status security, scanning, and code quality. I am currently in the process of building a pipeline for one of my customers and for that we are utilizing this solution for the static analysis.

The fact that the solution does security scanning is valuable. This is primarily why we use it. For code quality, we could utilize other tools, such as unit test coverage, which it gives you too, but having a more comprehensive tool is useful.

Having a tool that is comprehensive in nature is very useful because otherwise, we have to run through multiple tools in order to get the entire viewpoint of a particular set of code. For example, we use SonarQube in combination with Nexus, which is another product that gives us some other information. I guess when it comes to the gamut of things that we are looking for including static code quality, static testing, and dynamic testing of security. Having performance regression would be a helpful add on or ability to be able to do during the scan. 

In an upcoming release, I would like to see the dynamic security testing feature available. I would like to point out that they could already offer this feature but I have not been that deep into the solution to know yet.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

I have not run into any bugs or glitches. However, I have only been using it for a short time.

The pipeline that I am currently building is being used by the platforms team, which is approximately three people. We use the solution as part of the automated code review process. As far as a larger perspective of who is actually benefiting from it, the development team is about 35 people.

I have not needed to use technical support.

The set up was very easy.

I would recommend to those wanting to implement this solution to read the documentation, they are clear and easy to follow.

I rate SonarQube a nine out of ten.