OWASP Zap vs SonarQube comparison

OWASP and SonarSource Sàrl are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. OWASP is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0, while SonarSource Sàrl is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.2. OWASP holds a 3.5% mindshare in SAST, compared to SonarSource Sàrl’s 18.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OWASP users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of SonarSource Sàrl users who would recommend it.

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,287 Views
6,704 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

SonarQube

Read 134 SonarQube reviews

38,374 Views
28,013 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

SonarQube

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

SonarQube and OWASP Zap compete in code analysis and security testing. SonarQube seems to have the upper hand with its extensive range of features and integration capabilities, while OWASP Zap stands out for its ease of use and being a free tool for identifying vulnerabilities.

Features: SonarQube supports over 20 programming languages, integrates with Eclipse, and allows custom coding rules. Its reporting tools and community plugins enhance its advanced code analysis. OWASP Zap features an automated scanning system, a detailed reporting mechanism, and a robust intercepting proxy, offering both automated and manual scanning capabilities with high customization.

Room for Improvement: SonarQube could improve by optimizing analysis time, expanding language support, enhancing security features, and improving third-party integrations. Better API documentation and UI design are also desired. OWASP Zap could improve its reporting capabilities and automated testing features, specifically in detecting business logic flaws and reducing noise in reports.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: SonarQube offers flexible deployment options across Hybrid Cloud, On-premises, and Public Cloud, supported by a comprehensive community network and technical support for paid licenses. OWASP Zap is primarily On-premises, which may restrict deployment options but performs well locally. It benefits from community-driven support due to its open-source nature.

Pricing and ROI: SonarQube provides a free community edition and several paid tiers for advanced features, which cater to various organizational needs and budgets, with pricing considered reasonable though sometimes higher than competitors. OWASP Zap is entirely free, appealing to smaller organizations. Both tools contribute to a positive ROI through improved code quality and application security.

To learn more, read our detailed OWASP Zap vs. SonarQube Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. SonarQube

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 882,961 peers since 2012

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

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

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 February 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.5%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube is 18.2%, down from 26.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
SonarQube	18.2%
OWASP Zap	3.5%
Other	78.3%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Nithin-K

Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking.

Read full review

KarthikHarpanhalli

Sr Software Engineering Supervisor at Mozarc Medical

Gains control over rule customization and achieves reliable vulnerability assessment

The deployment process took me about 2 or 3 hours to deploy SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube), although I do not remember exactly since it was done about 2 years back. Currently, about 10 of my developers are using SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) in my company. I do not have plans to increase the usage of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) in the future as there will not be any requirement to increase. I am a senior software engineer and supervisor at Mozark Medical. My corporate email address is karthik.k.a.r.t.h.i.k.h.a.r.p.a.n.h.a.l.l.i@mozarkmedical.com. Overall, I would rate SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as a 9 out of 10.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has evolved over the years and recently in the last year they have added, HUD (Heads Up Display)."

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."

"The application scanning feature is the most valuable feature."

"It can be used effectively for internal auditing."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"You can run it against multiple targets."

"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."

More OWASP Zap pros

"There are many options and examples available in the tool that help us fix the issues it shows us."

"The product has a friendly UI that is easy to use and understand."

"The freemium version of SonarQube Server offers excellent value, especially compared to the high costs of Snyk."

"SonarQube is good in terms of code review and to report on basic vulnerabilities in your applications."

"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."

"The solution can verify vulnerabilities, code smells, and hotspots. It makes the software more secure and it helps make a junior or novice developer sharper."

"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."

"This has improved our organization because it has helped to find Security Vulnerabilities."

More SonarQube pros

Cons

"Zap could improve by providing better reports for security and recommendations for the vulnerabilities."

"Lacks resources where users can internally access a learning module from the tool."

"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."

"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."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"The ability to search the internet for other use cases and to use the solution to make applications more secure should be addressed."

"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."

"The solution is unable to customize reports."

More OWASP Zap cons

"We also use Fortify, which is another tool to find security errors. Fortify is a better security tool. It is better than SonarQube in finding errors. Sometimes, SonarQube doesn't find some of the errors that Fortify is able to find. Fortify also has a community, which SonarQube doesn't have. Its installation is a little bit complex. We need to install a database, install the product, and specify the version of the database and the product. They can simplify the installation and make it easier. We use docker for the installation because it is easier to use. Its dashboard needs to be improved. It is not intuitive. It is hard to understand the interface, and it can be improved to provide a better user experience."

"Ease of use/interface."

"New plug-ins should be integrated into SonarCloud to give more flexibility to the product."

"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 reporting can be improved."

"A little bit more emphasis on security and a bit more security scanning features would be nice."

"There could be better integration with other products."

"SonarQube could improve its static application security testing as per the industry standard."

More SonarQube cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is open source."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"The tool is open-source."

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"This solution is open source and free."

"It's free and open, currently under the Apache 2 license. If ZAP does what you need it to do, selling a free solution is a very easy."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

"Some of the plugins that were previously free are not free now."

"SonarQube is a fairly affordable solution for a larger scale if you have a specific role or specific department for secure code."

"We are using the open-source version, which is available free of cost."

"SonarQube is a cost-effective solution."

"As a user and a consumer of this solution, it can be pricey for my company to support and use, even though there are many benefits. For this reason, we use the free version. In the future, as our product cycles develop and evolve at a more steady pace, we hope to invest in the licensing for this tool."

"We are using the Developer Edition and the cost is based on the amount of code that is being processed."

"I am satisfied with the pricing."

"This solution is free."

More SonarQube pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

882,961 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	41
Midsize Enterprise	24
Large Enterprise	79

Questions from the Community

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 14% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Veracode vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs OWASP Zap

Compared 7% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Checkmarx One vs SonarQube

Compared 29% of the time

Snyk vs SonarQube

Compared 9% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs SonarQube

Compared 6% of the time

Coverity Static vs SonarQube

Compared 5% of the time

Sonatype Lifecycle vs SonarQube

Compared 2% of the time

More SonarQube Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

February 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Buyer's Guide

SonarQube

January 2026

Download SonarQube product report

Also Known As

No data available

Sonar, SonarQube Cloud

Interactive Demo

Demo not available

OWASP

SonarSource Sàrl

Overview

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

SonarQube leads automated code review, enhancing code quality and security in AI-driven SDLCs. It analyzes pull requests, providing developers with actionable feedback and AI-driven fixes before code merges. Trusted by top enterprises, it supports SaaS and self-managed deployments.

SonarQube supports a wide range of programming languages and integrates seamlessly with CI/CD tools like Jenkins. It is renowned for its static code analysis, code coverage, and security vulnerability detection. While its open-source foundation and scalability are praised, users seek enhanced integration across multiple languages, better security features, and improved documentation. Despite challenges, its ability to automate code inspections and ensure compliance with coding standards makes it essential in software development processes, facilitating continuous improvement.

What are the most important features?

Language Support: Extensive support for multiple programming languages.
Custom Coding Rules: Allows defining project-specific rules.
Integration: Seamlessly works with Jenkins and CI/CD pipelines.
Quality Gates: Simplifies monitoring code quality.
Dashboards: Facilitates easy monitoring and management.
Static Code Analysis: Detects issues early in development.
Security Detection: Identifies vulnerabilities automatically.

What benefits should users look for?

Improved Code Quality: Enhances reliability and maintainability.
Security Assurance: Strengthens code against vulnerabilities.
Technical Debt Reduction: Ensures cleaner, maintainable code.
Efficient Feedback: Speeds up development cycles.
Standards Compliance: Aids in adhering to best practices.

In industries like finance, healthcare, and automotive, SonarQube is leveraged for static code analysis, automating code inspections, and ensuring compliance with stringent standards. Teams integrate it into their CI/CD pipelines to maintain high-quality code, identify security vulnerabilities, and enhance code maintainability.

SonarSource Sàrl

Sample Customers

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Snowflake, Booking.com, Deutsche Bank, AstraZeneca, and Ford Motor Company.

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap vs. SonarQube

February 2026

Free Report: OWASP Zap vs. SonarQube

Find out what your peers are saying about OWASP Zap vs. SonarQube and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

882,961 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OWASP Zap 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.