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 882,886 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

"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."

"OWASP Zap is a good tool, one of my favorites for a long time, and I would recommend it."

"Fuzzer and Java APIs help a lot with our custom needs."

"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."

"I consider OWASP Zap to be the most effective solution overall; being open source allows integration with other systems via OWASP Zap APIs."

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

"The stability of the solution is very good."

"It has improved my organization with faster security tests."

More OWASP Zap pros

"Using SonarQube has helped us to identify areas of technical debt to work on, resulting in better code, fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer bugs."

"It is a good deal compared to all other tools on the market."

"The overall quality of the indicator is good."

"Any developer can easily identify issues using the process flow or steps provided by SonarQube. In terms of integration, SonarQube makes it quite easy, simplifying the steps for users."

"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."

"The most valuable features are the dashboard reports and the ease of integrating it with Jenkins."

"The SonarQube dashboard looks great."

"SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) has had a positive impact on my organization by giving the best impact for code checking and code structuring, making the code more usable and better."

More SonarQube pros

Cons

"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"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."

"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."

"Online documentation can be improved to utilize all features of ZAP and API methods to make use in automation."

"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."

"Sometimes, we get some false positives."

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

"If there was an easier to understand exactly what has been checked and what has not been checked, it would make this solution better. We have to trust that it has checked all known vulnerabilities but it's a bit hard to see after the scanning."

More OWASP Zap cons

"Our developers have complained about the Quality Gates and the number of false positives that this product reports."

"If the product could assist us with fixing issues by giving us more pointers then it would help to resolve more of the warnings without such a commitment in terms of time."

"We could use some team support, but since we are using the community version, it's not available."

"The solution is a bit lacking on the security side, in terms of finding and identifying vulnerabilities."

"We had some issues scanning the master branch but when we upgraded to version 7.9 we noticed it does scan the master branch but we had to do a workaround for it to happen. This process could be improved in a future release."

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

"There are sometimes security breaches in our code, which aren't be caught by SonarQube. In the security area, SonarCube has to improve. It needs to better compete with other products."

"One thing to improve would be the integration. There is a steep learning curve to get it integrated."

More SonarQube cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."

"It is highly recommended as it is an open source tool."

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

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"The tool is open-source."

"The tool is open source."

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

"As Zap is free and open-source, with tons of features similar to those of commercial solutions, I would definitely recommend trying it out."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

"We use the tool's community edition."

"SonarQube is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."

"The development license cost is reasonable, and we've had no concerns about SonarQube when it comes to cost."

"I am using the free version of the solution."

"We use the solution free of cost."

"People can try the free licenses and later can seek buying plugins/support, etc. once they started liking it."

"The beauty of this solution is the free open-source version is capable enough in doing pretty much what an enterprise-level version can do."

"On the pricing side, it's 3,000 Euros for 1 million lines of code."

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

882,886 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

882,886 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.