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

SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) vs Spirent CyberFlood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 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

SonarQube Cloud (formerly S...
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Spirent CyberFlood
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
32nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (35th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) is 5.9%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent CyberFlood is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Archana Verma - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides valuable insights on code vulnerabilities and integrates seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines
I find SonarQube Cloud to be very user-friendly with an easy-to-use interface. It provides detailed code smell reports and insights on hotspots, which can later represent security vulnerabilities. It gives precise reports compared to Coverity and has a slightly lower number of false positives. It is integrated easily with the CI/CD pipeline, saving time and cost. It provides information on upcoming vulnerability details and loopholes that might turn into vulnerabilities.
Jos Badimo - PeerSpot reviewer
Test assurance improves compliance and products with good performance
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one screen most of the time. Even if the system navigates me to another screen, it should effectively return me to the main screen.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I find SonarQube Cloud very easy to use and simple to integrate initially."
"Its dashboard provides a unified view of various code quality metrics, including code duplication, unit test coverage, and security hotspots."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"The SaaS solution for checking code without execution and dealing with security issues is valuable."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"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."
"I find SonarQube Cloud very easy to use and simple to integrate initially."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
 

Cons

"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"It would be helpful if notifications could go out to an extra person."
"SonarCloud's UI needs enhancement."
"I need a solution that can bring together three key areas: vulnerabilities, static scanning, and misarchitecture. Currently, to achieve our expectations, we have to use more than one product, as some products excel at scanning for vulnerabilities but are poor at checking code quality."
"SonarQube Cloud could improve its vulnerability detection compared to Veracode."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"The UI can be improved. Additionally, in future updates, I would like to see SonarQube Cloud provide more detailed solutions for fixing code issues, especially solutions related to CVEs."
"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of SonarCloud is not expensive, it goes by the lines of code. 1 million lines per code are approximately 4,000 USD per year. If you need 2 million lines of code you would double the annual cost."
"I rate the pricing a five out of ten."
"Previously, the pricing was 17,000 euros for five million lines analyzed. However, they now charge $15,000 per one million lines, significantly increasing the cost."
"The price of SonarCloud could be less expensive. We are using the community version and the price should be more reasonable."
"The current pricing is quite cheap."
"While not extremely cheap, it aligns well with market standards and offers good value."
"I am using the free version of the solution."
"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
6%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about SonarCloud?
Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SonarCloud?
From my experience, SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) is very expensive for small companies. It would be a great improvement if the price for smaller companies were reduced, as I do not have th...
What needs improvement with SonarCloud?
I need a solution that can bring together three key areas: vulnerabilities, static scanning, and misarchitecture. Currently, to achieve our expectations, we have to use more than one product, as so...
What needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one...
What is your primary use case for Spirent CyberFlood?
I have been using the solution for a year now. The customers I work with are focused on both custom test assurance and test automation. The solution is utilized in the financial services sector and...
 

Also Known As

No data available
CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Digicel
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) vs. Spirent CyberFlood and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.