We performed a comparison between CodeSonar and Qualys Web Application Scanning based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."
"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"It has been able to scale."
"QualysGuard web-based scanner is very useful for performing external penetration and PCI scans from remote locations."
"It is a cloud-based solution, so it is easy to scale."
"I have found the detection of vulnerabilities tool thorough with good results and the graphical display output to be wonderful and full of colors. It allows many types of outputs, such as bar and chart previews."
"Its most valuable features are patch management, vulnerability management, and PCI compliance."
"The simplicity of exporting reports and the simplicity and clarity of the reports included with the product are good."
"With our vulnerabilities under control, it's putting our services in compliance and minimizing our risk for exposure."
"The most valuable feature is that we are able to scan the services and put credentials like a user ID password. We can verify the vulnerability level."
"This product is designed for easy scalability and can easily scale up without major challenges."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"It was expensive."
"When comparing this solution to Veracode, Veracode has good interactive features and gives a clear understanding of what the vulnerabilities are, which error line of the vulnerability is on and what can be done. It gives interactive features, whereas this solution does not give a clear understanding of where or how to fix the problem."
"The virus code updates are not frequent enough."
"We receive false positives sometimes when using a solution that could be improved. However, the technical team provides us with the exact explanation why it was giving us that kind of error."
"There's a distinction between internal and external scanning processes that could be streamlined. Currently, for internal scanning, specific configurations and scanner appliances need to be deployed within the network, which differs from the simpler setup for external scans. This dual process complicates the setup for comprehensive scanning coverage."
"The solution needs to adjust its pricing. They should make it more affordable."
"The area of false positives could be improved. There are quite a number of false positives as compared to other solutions. They could probably fine tune the algorithm to be able to reduce the number of false positives being detected."
"The product's pricing could be better."
"Qualys Web Application Scanning is very complex to use, and its graphical interface is not very user-friendly."
More Qualys Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
CodeSonar is ranked 21st in Application Security Tools with 7 reviews while Qualys Web Application Scanning is ranked 18th in Application Security Tools with 31 reviews. CodeSonar is rated 8.2, while Qualys Web Application Scanning is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of CodeSonar writes "Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Qualys Web Application Scanning writes "A stable solution that can be used for infrastructure vulnerability scanning and web application scanning". CodeSonar is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, Polyspace Code Prover and Semgrep Code, whereas Qualys Web Application Scanning is most compared with OWASP Zap, SonarQube, Veracode, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Fortify WebInspect. See our CodeSonar vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning 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.