We performed a comparison between Polyspace Code Prover and SonarQube 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."The product detects memory corruptions."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"The stability is good."
"Issue Explanations: Documentation with detailed samples. Helps in growing technical knowledge and re-writing logic to conforming solutions."
"The software quality gate streamlines the product's quality."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of SonarQube I have found to be the configuration that has allowed us to can make adjusts to the demands of the code review. It gives a specified classification regarding the skill, prioritization, and it is easy for me to review and make my code."
"Strong code evaluation for budget-minded clients."
"The tool helps us to monitor and manage violations. It manages the bugs and security violations."
"The product itself has a friendly UI."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I would like to see SonarQube implement a good amount of improvements to the product's security features. Another aspect of SonarQube that could be improved is the search functionality."
"Ease of use/interface."
"We could use some team support, but since we are using the community version, it's not available."
"The solution could improve the management reports by making them easier to understand for the technical team that needs to review them."
"In terms of what can be improved, the areas that need more attention in the solution are its architecture and development."
"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."
"Lacks sufficient visibility and documentation."
"We're in the process of figuring out how to automate the workflow for QA audit controls on it. I think that's perhaps an area that we could use some buffing. We're a Kubernetes shop, so there are some things that aren't direct fits, which we're struggling with on the component Docker side. But nothing major."
Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 112 reviews. Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". 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". Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar, Parasoft SOAtest and GitLab, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Polyspace Code Prover 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.