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 solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The ZAP scan and code crawler are valuable features."
"The community edition updates services regularly. They add new vulnerabilities into the scanning list."
"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."
"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."
"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"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 most valuable feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"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."
"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."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"It doesn't run on absolutely every operating system."
"The product reporting could be improved."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"The reporting feature could be more descriptive."
"The solution is somewhat unreliable because after we get the finding, we have to manually verify each of its findings to see whether it's a false positive or a true finding, and it takes time."
"The work that it does in the limited scope is good, but the scope is very limited in terms of the scanning features. The number of things it tests or finds is limited. They need to make it a more of a mainstream tool that people can use, and they can even think about having it on a proprietary basis. They need to increase the coverage of the scan and the results that it finds. That has always been Zap's limitation. Zap is a very good tool for a beginner, but once you start moving up the ladder where you want further details and you want your scan to show more in-depth results, Zap falls short because its coverage falls short. It does not have the capacity to do more."
"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."
"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."
"It would be helpful if notifications could go out to an extra person."
"SonarCloud's UI needs enhancement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
OWASP Zap is ranked 7th 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, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and GitLab, 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.
