We performed a comparison between OWASP Zap and SonarCloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, it's very difficult."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"You can run it against multiple targets."
"Simple and easy to learn and master."
"The solution has tightened our security."
"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."
"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"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 reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"The solution provides continuous code analysis which has improved the quality of our code. It can raise alarms on vulnerabilities with immediate reports on the dashboard. Few things are false positives and we can customize the rules."
"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."
"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."
"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."
"The technical support team must be proactive."
"The product reporting could be improved."
"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."
"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very helpful."
"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."
"The documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"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."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
"The reports could improve by providing more information. We are not able to use the reports in our operation until they are improved. Additionally, if the vendor provided more customization capabilities it would be a benefit."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
OWASP Zap is ranked 8th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 37 reviews while SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 10 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.6, while SonarCloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Great for automating and testing and has tightened our security ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". OWASP Zap is most compared with SonarQube, Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Veracode and Rapid7 InsightAppSec, whereas SonarCloud is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, GitLab and Coverity. See our OWASP Zap vs. SonarCloud report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.