Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Fortify Software Security Center vs SonarQube comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 5, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Fortify Software Security C...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
27th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SonarQube
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
134
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (1st), Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Fortify Software Security Center is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube is 20.8%, down from 26.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)20.8%
Fortify Software Security Center0.6%
Other78.6%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Comprehensive vulnerability analysis and customization features with decent pricing
Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances. WebInspect supports a number of APIs and web endpoints. I find its feature of macro recording allows for testing vulnerabilities during multi-factor authentication sessions very valuable. I appreciate the ability to further analyze data with tools like Audit Workbench.
Sthembiso Zondi - PeerSpot reviewer
Consistent improvements in code quality and security with effective integration and reliable technical support
The features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) that I find most useful are the suggestions received from reviewing the code. When they review the code, they provide suggestions on how to fix it, and we find those very useful from a development perspective. We use SonarQube Server's (formerly SonarQube) centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve. We use that for organizational improvement purposes. The ability to tailor metrics tracking in SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) has been beneficial to my team. There are team-specific dashboards which are related to specific repositories they utilize, and we have that aggregative dashboard that shows the whole organization's performance. We can drill down per specific repository, which makes it easier for the team to improve specific things.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"Software Security Center is highly customizable and helps me test all vulnerability data against the latest conventions like OWASP Top Ten, CVE Top twenty-five, and several other legal compliances."
"The overall rating for this tool is ten out of ten."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"Fortify Analytics' AI function helps scan and provides more detailed explanations and recommendations about vulnerabilities."
"I like the explanation of issues provided by Fortify Software Security Center."
"SonarQube is good in terms of code review and to report on basic vulnerabilities in your applications."
"My focus is mainly on the DevOps pipeline side of things, and from my perspective, the ease of use and configuration is valuable. It is pretty straightforward to take a deployment pipeline or CI/CD pipeline and integrate SonarQube into it."
"The most valuable feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"Engineers have also learned from the results and have improved themselves as engineers. This will help them with their careers."
"The static code analysis is very good."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"This has improved our organization because it has helped to find Security Vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, easy to access, and they provide good training files."
 

Cons

"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"I am not satisfied with the percentage of false positives, which is around eighteen percent."
"Improvements needed for Software Security Center include better aggregation views of datasets."
"The product's overlap feature is restrictive and requires more customization efforts, which can be expensive."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"I see a problem with SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) because the vulnerability assessment is continuous; if I fix some vulnerabilities today, they reappear in the next scan, and there will be completely different issues that need to be fixed."
"The solution is a bit lacking on the security side, in terms of finding and identifying vulnerabilities."
"It does not provide deeper scanning of vulnerabilities in an application, on a live session. This is something we are not happy about. Maybe the reason for that is we are running the community edition currently, but other editions may improve on that aspect."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"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 a great add-on if SonarQube could update its database for vulnerabilities or plugging parts."
"SonarQube could improve by adding automatic creation of tasks after scanning and more support for the Czech language."
"I think the code security can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is a costly solution that could be cheaper."
"As a Fortify partner company providing technical support, I find the product expensive in our country, where local, inexpensive products are available."
"The solution is priced fair."
"The free version of SonarQube does everything that we need it to."
"We pay €10 per month for this solution, which is good. It provides a good value for money."
"The developer edition is based on cost per lines of code."
"Can try developer version for 14 days on the free trial."
"We are using the Developer Edition and the cost is based on the amount of code that is being processed."
"The tool's pricing is reasonable."
"I was using the Community Edition, which is available free of charge."
"I am satisfied with the pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise79
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
In the beginning, it was difficult for me to verify that our usage of Fortify Software Security Center corresponded to the license and criteria. Now, we have negotiated a number of details to respe...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Software Security Center?
I would like the false positive issue to diminish. I have experienced a lot of false positives, but I think this is due to using an older version. I hope the new version will resolve my problem.
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Software Security Center?
They use it to scan applications and fix bugs, which are my customers' main use cases for Fortify Software Security Center. As a reseller, I sell this product to provide application security becaus...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Software Security Center, Application Security Center, HPE Application Security Center, WebInspect
Sonar, SonarQube Cloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Neosecure, Acxiom, Skandinavisk Data Center A/S, Parkeon
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Fortify Software Security Center vs. SonarQube and other solutions. Updated: November 2025.
873,085 professionals have used our research since 2012.