We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Protect 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 solution has excellent real-time capabilities."
"The product gives a few false positives. We get 99 percent true positives."
"Protect provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks."
"Can tweak rules and feed them into our build pipelines."
"The code coverage feature is very good."
"SonarQube: Recording of issues over a period of time, with an indication of the addition in the new issues or the reduction of existing issues (which were fixed)."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"It provides the security that is required from a solution for financial businesses."
"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."
"When comparing other static code analysis tools, SonarQube has fewer false-positive issues being reported. They have a lot of support for different tech stacks. It covers the entire developer community which includes Salesforce or it could be the regular Java.net project. It has actually sufficed all the needs in one tool for static code analysis."
"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."
"Protect's reporting GUI is very basic. To get all statuses from the APIs, we needed to write our own KPI dashboard to provide reports."
"There's room for improvement in the initial setup."
"Contrast Security Protect needs to improve integration."
"The product's pricing could be lower."
"A better design of the interface and add some new rules."
"I am not very pleased with the technical debt computation."
"If I configure a project in SonarQube, it generates a token. When we're compiling our code with SonarQube, we have to provide the token for security reasons. If IP-based connectivity is established with the solution, the project should automatically be populated without providing any additional token. It will be easy to provide just the IP address. It currently supports this functionality, but it makes a different branch in the project dashboard. From the configuration and dashboard point of view, it should have some transformations. There can be dashboard integration so that we can configure the dashboard for different purposes."
"It should be user-friendly."
"SonarQube's detail in the security could be improved. It may be helpful to have additional details, with regards to Oracle PL/SQL. For example, it's neither as built nor as thorough as Java. For now, this is the only additional feature I would like to see."
"SonarQube is not development-centric like Snyk."
"New plug-ins should be integrated into SonarCloud to give more flexibility to the product."
Contrast Security Protect is ranked 32nd in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 108 reviews. Contrast Security Protect is rated 8.4, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Contrast Security Protect writes "It provides us with more in-depth visibility into ongoing attacks". 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". Contrast Security Protect is most compared with Fortify on Demand, Snyk, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Sonatype Lifecycle and HCL AppScan, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Contrast Security Protect 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.
