We performed a comparison between SonarQube and Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, SonarQube and Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle seem to have a similar rating among users regarding ease of deployment, pricing, service and support, and ROI. In terms of features, users of SonarQube felt more scanning features were needed, while users of Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle felt the software needed to be more code-driven.
"It is very good at identifying technical debt."
"We can create a Quality Gate in order to fail Jenkins jobs where the code coverage is lower than the set percentage."
"SonarQube is scalable. My company has 50 users."
"It is an easy tool that you can deploy and configure. After that you can measure the history of your obligation and integrate it with other tools like GitLab or GitHub or Azure DevOps to do quality code analysis."
"This solution has the capability to analyze source code in almost all the languages in the market."
"It automatically scans for code, detects vulnerabilities, and generates daily reports."
"It is a very good tool for analysis and security vulnerability checking."
"The fact that the solution does security scanning is valuable."
"The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful."
"Sonatype support is quite responsive. When we needed something, we could reach out and set up a meeting. They provide the best support possible."
"It's online, which means if a change is made to the Nexus database today, or within the hour, my developers will benefit instantly. The security features are discovered continuously. So if Nexus finds out that a library is no longer safe, they just have to flag it and, automatically, my developers will know."
"There is a feature called Continuous Monitoring. As time goes on we'll be able to know whether a platform is still secure or not because of this feature."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The most important features of the Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle are the vulnerability reports."
"When I started to install the Nexus products and started to integrate them into our development cycle, it helped us construct or fill out our development process in general. The build stage is a really good template for us and it helped establish a structure that we could build our whole continuous integration and development process around. Now our git repos are tagged for different build stages data, staging, and for release. That aligns with the Nexus Lifecycle build stages."
"It's helped us free up staff time."
"The exporting capabilities could be improved. Currently, exporting is fully dependent on the SonarQube environment."
"SonarQube is not development-centric like Snyk."
"SonarQube could improve by adding automatic creation of tasks after scanning and more support for the Czech language."
"I think the code security can be improved."
"The security in SonarQube could be better."
"The solution could improve by providing more advanced technologies."
"The documentation is not clear and it needs to be updated."
"The implementation of the solution is straightforward. However, we did have some initial initialization issues at the of the projects. I don't think it was SonarQube's fault. It was the way it was implemented in our organization because it's mainly integrated with many software, such as Jira, Confluence, and Butler."
"Nexus Lifecycle is multiple products. One drawback I've noticed is that there are some differences in the features between the products within Lifecycle. They need to maintain the same structure, but there are some slight differences."
"Another feature they could use is more languages. Sonatype has been mainly a Java shop because they look after Maven Central... But we've slowly been branching out to different languages. They don't cover all of them, and those that they do cover are not as in-depth as we would like them to be."
"Some of the APIs are just REST APIs and I would like to see more of the functionality in the plugin side of the world. For example, with the RESTful API I can actually delete or move an artifact from one Nexus repository to another. I can't do that with the pipeline API, as of yet. I'd like to see a bit more functionality on that side."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"The GUI is simple, so it's easy to use. It started as great to use, but for larger scale companies, it also comes with some limitations. This is why we tried to move to more of an API approach. So, the GUI could use some improvements potentially."
"The user interface needs to be improved. It is slow for us. We use Nexus IQ mostly via APIs. We don't use the interface that much, but when we use it, certain areas are just unresponsive or very slow to load. So, performance-wise, the UI is not fast enough for us, but we don't use it that much anyway."
"The reporting could be better."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews while Sonatype Lifecycle is ranked 6th in Application Security Tools with 43 reviews. SonarQube is rated 8.0, while Sonatype Lifecycle is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sonatype Lifecycle writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Fortify on Demand, whereas Sonatype Lifecycle is most compared with Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, GitLab, Checkmarx One and Mend.io. See our SonarQube vs. Sonatype Lifecycle report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.