We compared SonarQube and Klocwork based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
SonarQube is lauded for its versatility, simplicity, and integration capabilities, offering comprehensive features and usability enhancements. Users praise its customer service and support, reasonable pricing, and positive ROI. Klocwork is valued for its code analysis, real-time notifications, integration options, and reporting functionality. Both tools have areas for improvement such as analysis speed and user interface refinement.
Features: SonarQube offers valuable features such as support for multiple languages, integration with DevOps pipelines, and comprehensive code quality parameters. On the other hand, Klocwork focuses on code analysis capabilities, real-time notifications, and comprehensive reporting functionality.
Pricing and ROI: SonarQube's setup cost is considered straightforward and easy, with users appreciating the simplicity of the process. In contrast, user thoughts on Klocwork's setup cost remain unspecified, leaving uncertainty about its ease and simplicity., SonarQube's ROI lies in its ability to improve code quality, efficiency, and project success, while Klocwork's ROI is indicated by positive user reviews.
Room for Improvement: Areas for improvement in SonarQube include enhancing analysis speed, refining user interface for better navigation, clearer instructions for setup and configuration, improving documentation for advanced functionalities, addressing occasional performance issues, and enhancing integration options. Users have provided suggestions for improvement and identified aspects that require attention in Klocwork.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, SonarQube takes an average of three months for deployment and one week for setup, while Klocwork varies with some users taking three months for deployment and one week for setup, and others taking one week for both deployment and setup., SonarQube's customer service stands out with exceptional support, prompt and knowledgeable assistance, responsiveness, and willingness to go above and beyond. Users have expressed confidence in its reliability and added value. On the other hand, Klocwork's customer service has been highly praised for excellent assistance, prompt and attentive response, knowledge and expertise, reliable support, effective solutions, and commitment to customer satisfaction.
The summary above is based on 40 interviews we conducted recently with SonarQube and Klocwork users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"There is a central Klocwork server at our headquarter in France so we connect the client directly to the server on-premises remotely."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"The most valuable feature of Klocwork is finding defects while you're doing the coding. For example, if you have an IDE plug-in of Klocwork on Visual Studio or Eclipse, you can find the faults; similar to using spell check on Word, you can find out defects during the development phase, which means that you don't have to wait till the development is over to find the flaws and address the deficiencies. I also find language support in Klocwork good because it used to support only C, C++, C#, and Java, but now, it also supports Java scripts and Python."
"The tool helps the team to think beforehand about corner cases or potential bugs that might arise in real-time."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"The ability to create custom checkers is a plus."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"Using SonarQube has helped us to identify areas of technical debt to work on, resulting in better code, fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer bugs."
"It's enabled us to improve software quality and help us to disseminate best practices."
"The reporting and the results are quick. It gets integrated within the pipeline well."
"It automatically scans for code, detects vulnerabilities, and generates daily reports."
"It is a very good tool for analysis despite its limitations."
"The software quality gate streamlines the product's quality."
"SonarQube is designed well making it easy to use, simple to identify issues and find solutions to problems."
"There is a free version."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"I hope that in each new release they add new features relating to the addition of checkers, improving their analysis engines etc."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"I believe it should support more languages, such as Python and JavaScript."
"The main problem is that since it only parses the code, the warnings or the problems that are given as a result of the report can sometimes require a lot of effort to analyze."
"Klocwork does have a problem with true positives. It only found 30% of true positives in the Juliet test case."
"The solution could improve the management reports by making them easier to understand for the technical team that needs to review them."
"Although it has Sonar built into it, it is still lacking. Customization features of identifying a particular attack still need to be worked on. To give you an example: if we want to scan and do a false positive analysis, those types of features are missing. If we want to rescan something from a particular point that is a feature that is also missing. It’s in our queue. That will hopefully save a lot of time."
"There isn't a very good enterprise report."
"We called support and complained but have not received any information as we use the free version. We had to fix it on our own and could not escalate it to the tool's developer."
"I think the code security can be improved."
"SonarQube needs to improve its ease of use, integration with third-party platforms, and scalability."
"SonarQube could improve its static application security testing as per the industry standard."
"We could use some team support, but since we are using the community version, it's not available."
Klocwork is ranked 16th in Application Security Tools with 20 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Klocwork is rated 8.2, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". 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". Klocwork is most compared with Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar, Checkmarx One and Veracode, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and CAST Highlight. See our Klocwork vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.