We compared SonarQube and GitHub Advanced Security based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
SonarQube offers a comprehensive solution with versatile language support, seamless integration with DevOps pipelines, and configurable features, making it a cost-effective choice with exceptional customer service. GitHub Advanced Security focuses on effective security measures, robust vulnerability detection, and user-friendly features, providing a valuable investment with flexible pricing and customizable options. Both platforms have room for improvement in areas such as analysis speed, user interface refinement, and integration capabilities.
Features: SonarQube's valuable features emphasize comprehensive code quality parameters, multiple language support, and integration with DevOps pipelines. GitHub Advanced Security focuses on software composition analysis, code scanning, and vulnerability alerts, with robust security measures and seamless workflow integration.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for SonarQube is considered straightforward and easy, with users appreciating the simplicity of the process. On the other hand, GitHub Advanced Security also has a straightforward and hassle-free setup cost. Both products offer flexible and customizable licensing options to cater to different user requirements., SonarQube has been praised for its ability to improve code quality, identify issues, and enhance project efficiency. Users benefit from its vulnerability detection and code compliance tools. On the other hand, GitHub Advanced Security offers enhanced security features, comprehensive vulnerability scanning, and automated security alerts, resulting in significant ROI and eliminating the need for third-party security tools.
Room for Improvement: In terms of areas for improvement, SonarQube could benefit from enhancing analysis speed, refining the user interface, providing clearer setup instructions, improving the documentation, addressing occasional performance issues, and enhancing integration options. On the other hand, users have suggested better integration with third-party tools, more customization options, improved usability and intuitiveness of the user interface, and increased speed and responsiveness for GitHub Advanced Security.
Deployment and customer support: Users report varying durations for implementing a new tech solution with SonarQube. Some took 3 months for deployment and a week for setup, while others took a week for both. For GitHub Advanced Security, some users took 3 months for deployment and a week for setup, while others took a week for both., SonarQube's customer service has been praised for its prompt and knowledgeable assistance. Users highlight the team's willingness to address any issues. GitHub Advanced Security's customer service is highly commendable, with users appreciating the level of assistance and guidance they receive. The team is described as responsive, knowledgeable, and efficient in resolving issues.
The summary above is based on 39 interviews we conducted recently with SonarQube and GitHub Advanced Security users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"This solution has helped with the integration and building of our CICD pipeline."
"Issue Explanations: Documentation with detailed samples. Helps in growing technical knowledge and re-writing logic to conforming solutions."
"There are many options and examples available in the tool that help us fix the issues it shows us."
"I like that it has a better dashboard compared to Clockwork. It's also stable."
"We've configured it to run on each commit, providing feedback on our software quality. ]"
"Using SonarQube has helped us to identify areas of technical debt to work on, resulting in better code, fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer bugs."
"The software quality gate streamlines the product's quality."
"The customizable dashboard and ability to include results and coverage from unit test and other static analysis code tools."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"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 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."
"From a reporting perspective, we sometimes have problems interpreting the vulnerability scan reports. For example, if it finds a possible threat, our analysts have to manually check the provided reports, and sometimes we have issues getting all the data needed to properly verify if it's accurate or not."
"The product provides false reports sometimes."
"Dynamic scanning is missing and there are some issues with security scanning."
"After scanning our code and generating a report, it would be helpful if SonarQube could also generate a solution to fix vulnerabilities in the report."
"It does not provide deeper scanning of vulnerabilities in an application, on a live session. This is something we are not happy about. Maybe the reason for that is we are running the community edition currently, but other editions may improve on that aspect."
"There needs to be a shareable reporting piece or something we can click and generate easily."
GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". 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". GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and GitLab, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Sonatype Lifecycle. See our GitHub Advanced Security vs. SonarQube 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.