We performed a comparison between SonarCloud and SonarQube based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, SonarQube comes out ahead of SonarCloud. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that SonarCloud lacks technical support.
"The most valuable feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"The most valuable features of SonarCloud are the ability to discover vulnerabilities, security weak points, security hotspots, and all the feedback that comes into the feature branch. You can deploy the code with the security, you can eliminate the problem at the developer level rather than identifying the problem in the productions."
"SonarCloud is overall a good tool for identifying code smells, bugs, and code duplication, but we've found that using Android Lint is more effective for our needs."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"I'm not implementing the solutions. However, I've talked to the people who deploy the tools, and they are happy with how easy setting up SonarCloud is."
"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."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"We've configured it to run on each commit, providing feedback on our software quality. ]"
"It has very good scalability and stability."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"The most valuable features are the analysis and detection of issues within the application code."
"SonarQube is admin friendly."
"This solution has helped with the integration and building of our CICD pipeline."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"The documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"CI/CD pipeline is part of a whole chain of design, development, and production, and it's becoming increasingly crucial to optimize the various tools across different stages. However, it's still a silo approach because the full integration is missing. This isn't just an issue with SonarCloud. It's a general problem with tooling."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"It would be helpful if notifications could go out to an extra person."
"SonarCloud's UI needs enhancement."
"SonarCloud can improve the false positives. Sometimes the gates sometimes act a little weird. We then need to manually go and mark the false positive."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
"I am not very pleased with the technical debt computation."
"The handling of the contents of Docker container images could be better."
"A little bit more emphasis on security and a bit more security scanning features would be nice."
"The BPM language is important and should be considered in SonarQube."
"The learning curve can be fairly steep at first, but then, it's not an entry-level type of application. It's not like an introduction to C programming. You should know not just C programming and how to make projects but also how to apply its findings to the bigger picture. I've had users who said that they wish it was easier to understand how to configure, but I don't know if that's doable because what it's doing is a very complicated thing. I don't know if it is possible to make a complicated thing trivially simple."
"We've been using the Community Edition, which means that we get to use it at our leisure, and they're kind enough to literally give it to us. However, it takes a fair amount of effort to figure out how to get everything up and running. Since we didn't go with the professional paid version, we're not entitled to support. Of course that could be self-correcting if we were to make the step to buy into this and really use it. Then their technical support would be available to us to make strides for using it better."
"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."
"Code security scanning could be improved."
SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 10 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Testing (AST) with 110 reviews. SonarCloud is rated 8.4, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". 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". SonarCloud is most compared with Veracode, Checkmarx One, GitLab, OWASP Zap and Coverity, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, Coverity, Veracode, Snyk and GitHub Advanced Security. See our SonarCloud vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
