We performed a comparison between SonarQube and Checkmarx based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both solutions have intuitive interfaces and are easy to use. However, Checkmarx offers a more comprehensive feature set, including software composition scanning and a higher number of vulnerabilities detected. Checkmarx also provides better language support and more advanced reporting capabilities. SonarQube has a simpler pricing model and is generally considered more affordable. SonarQube focuses strongly on code quality and offers better integration with DevOps pipelines. The customer service and support experiences for both products vary, with some users praising the support and others reporting negative experiences.
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"It's enabled us to improve software quality and help us to disseminate best practices."
"I am only interested in the security features in SonarQube. There are plenty of features other features, such as test coverage, code anomalies, and pointer access are handled by the business logic teams. They get the reports and they have to fix them in JIRA or Bugzilla."
"SonarQube is scalable. My company has 50 users."
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"The depth features I have found most valuable. You receive a quick comprehensive comparison overview regarding the current release and the last release and what type of depths dependency or duplication should be used. This is going to help you to make a more readable code and have more flexibility for the engineers to understand how things should work when they do not know."
"I like that it covers most programming languages for source code review."
"When comparing other static code analysis tools, SonarQube has fewer false-positive issues being reported. They have a lot of support for different tech stacks. It covers the entire developer community which includes Salesforce or it could be the regular Java.net project. It has actually sufficed all the needs in one tool for static code analysis."
"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."
"They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"We can run only one project at a time."
"If I configure a project in SonarQube, it generates a token. When we're compiling our code with SonarQube, we have to provide the token for security reasons. If IP-based connectivity is established with the solution, the project should automatically be populated without providing any additional token. It will be easy to provide just the IP address. It currently supports this functionality, but it makes a different branch in the project dashboard. From the configuration and dashboard point of view, it should have some transformations. There can be dashboard integration so that we can configure the dashboard for different purposes."
"Lacks sufficient visibility and documentation."
"Currently requires multiple tools, lacking one overall tool."
"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 would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production."
"We did have some trouble with the LDAP integration for the console."
"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."
"SonarQube could improve its static application security testing as per the industry standard."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 108 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". 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". Checkmarx One is most compared with Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas SonarQube is most compared with SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode, Snyk and Sonatype Lifecycle. See our Checkmarx One vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
SonarQube depends on completely what you configure the Rules. You will have the option of the Profile creation and can be assigned to the Projects. If you configure the project --> under them services configuration it is good to go. Proper configuration is important in the Sonat Qube. Yes, Sonarqube allows developers to delint their code before SAST.
Veracode recently introduced it. But this integration at developer Machine integration available for only JAVA coded Projets.
About the Vulnerability coverage, both are the same. OWASP TOP 10 is equal to Sans 25. sans25 is categorized with one category number and describes under that subsection. Refer to this. https://www.templarbit.com/blog/2018/02/08/owasp-top-10-vs-sans-cwe-25/
SonarQube can be used for SAST. However, based on our internal analysis, our team feel CheckMarx is better suited for Security compared to SonarQube. SoanrQube is used in day to day developer code scan and Checkmarx is used during code movement to staging or during release.