We performed a comparison between SonarCloud and SonarQube based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Result: Based on the parameters we compared, SonarQube comes out ahead of SonarCloud. Although both products have valuable features and can be estimated as high-end solutions, our reviewers found that SonarCloud lacks technical support.
"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 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 feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"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."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"Apart from the security point of view, I like that it makes it easy to detect code smells and other issues in terms of code quality and standards."
"The most valuable features are the analysis and detection of issues within the application code."
"Before you even compile, it can catch known vulnerability issues or patterns."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard, the ability to drill down to the code, user-friendly, and the technical debt estimation."
"SonarQube has a lot of value, it reviews the basic coding standards and security vulnerabilities of code that help to reduce issues."
"The reporting and the results are quick. It gets integrated within the pipeline well."
"We've configured it to run on each commit, providing feedback on our software quality. ]"
"The solution has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"SonarCloud's UI needs enhancement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"If the product could assist us with fixing issues by giving us more pointers then it would help to resolve more of the warnings without such a commitment in terms of time."
"There isn't a very good enterprise report."
"I would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production."
"The learning curve can be fairly steep at first, but then, it's not an entry-level type of application. It's not like an introduction to C programming. You should know not just C programming and how to make projects but also how to apply its findings to the bigger picture. I've had users who said that they wish it was easier to understand how to configure, but I don't know if that's doable because what it's doing is a very complicated thing. I don't know if it is possible to make a complicated thing trivially simple."
"The software testing tool capability could improve. It does not always integrate well. You have to use a specific plugin and the plugin does not always go in Apple's applications."
"It would be better if SonarQube provided a good UI for external configuration."
"Their dashboarding is very limited. They can improve their dashboards for multiple areas, such as security review, maintainability, etc. They have all this information, so they should publish all this information on the dashboard so that the users can view the summary and then analyze it further. This is something that I would like to see in the next version."
"The product's pricing could be lower."
SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 10 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 110 reviews. SonarCloud is rated 8.4, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". 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". SonarCloud is most compared with Veracode, Checkmarx One, GitLab, OWASP Zap and Coverity, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, Coverity, Veracode, Snyk and GitHub Advanced Security. See our SonarCloud vs. SonarQube 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.