

Veracode and SonarQube are industry leaders in application security testing. While both tools have their strengths, Veracode's comprehensive testing and user adaptability make it the preferred choice for extensive security needs.
Features: Veracode integrates static, dynamic, and manual scans into development cycles, offering extensive API integration for automated vulnerability detection across languages. SonarQube provides strong static code analysis with extensive language support and continuous integration, but lacks the comprehensive testing types present in Veracode.
Room for Improvement: Veracode faces challenges with false positives, and users seek better API integration and reporting improvements. Licensing could be more flexible for small enterprises. SonarQube needs enhancements in security capabilities, better integration with third-party tools, and improved user documentation. While both tools experience false positives, Veracode's dynamic scanning speed and SonarQube's limited security options are significant areas for improvement.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Veracode is primarily deployed on public and hybrid clouds, praised for robust support and expert assistance, though response times for complex issues can be slow. SonarQube is widely used on-premises, valued for its flexibility. However, customers mention its customer support could be more prominent, and improving the user interface and integration might enhance user experience.
Pricing and ROI: Veracode's pricing, although high, is justified by its comprehensive features, providing value in reducing post-production fix costs and mitigating security breach risks. Concerns about affordability remain for smaller companies, whereas SonarQube, with its open-source model, offers a cost-effective option that is attractive for organizations with budget constraints, despite fewer security features compared to Veracode.
It is easily integrable with the CI/CD pipeline and supports multiple projects with its extensive plugin options.
I have seen a return on the investment from SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) because the value it adds relates to static code analysis and vulnerability assessments needed for our FDA approval process.
We see productivity increasing based on the fact that the code review is mostly automated, allowing the developer to fix the code themselves before assigning it to someone else to review, thus receiving that ROI.
The scanners of Veracode bring status of the weaknesses in the current infrastructure. It scans and provides reports regarding the servers, the network, and the applications running on those servers.
Regarding price, the evaluation should focus on how efficiently they will recover their investment, considering the time saved through the use of Veracode Fix, for example, and the ability to fix code at dev time compared to the problems faced when fixing after the product is already deployed.
We did see a return on investment with Veracode, as we segregated our remediation efforts, which reduced our time to delivery as well as the number of engineers needed to help us in delivering a secure solution.
The community support is quite effective.
The customer service and support for SonarQube Cloud are responsive and helpful.
Integrating it into different solutions is straightforward.
Access to the engineering team is crucial for faster feedback on the product fix process.
I have communicated with the technical support of Veracode a couple of times, and this was a really great experience because these professionals know their material.
They share detailed information via email, including screenshots or further clarification about the issue.
There are limitations, and it seems to have fewer capabilities than Veracode.
It has been used in multiple projects and performs well.
I would rate the scalability of SonarQube Server as a 10 because we can configure the server to scan multiple projects based on the number of lines.
Cloud solutions are easier to scale than on-premise solutions.
It has a good capacity to scale effectively.
Implementing these features into our normal CI/CD was good, so I can say that scalability is really good.
I think SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is stable, and we did not face any problems unless there was a power outage or if the LAN cable was plugged out.
From my team's feedback, it is almost an eight out of ten.
It is a quite stable solution.
If the Veracode server is down, we experience many issues during the scan.
It's not that easy to onboard, but once they have been onboarded on the platform, and the pipeline configured alongside the product configured, it works effectively.
I would like to see SonarQube Cloud provide more detailed solutions for fixing code issues, especially solutions related to CVEs.
I need a solution that can bring together three key areas: vulnerabilities, static scanning, and misarchitecture.
Static code analysis is good, but the product lacks dynamic code scanning capabilities, an area where Veracode excels.
If it could be integrated directly with code repositories such as Bitbucket or GitHub, without the need to create a pipeline to upload and decode code, it would simplify the code scan process significantly.
We had issues with scanning large applications. Scanning took a lot of time, so we kept it outside the DevOps pipeline to avoid delaying deployments.
A nice addition would be if it could be extended for scenarios with custom cleansers.
I would rate the pricing for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as an 8, where 1 is very cheap and 10 is very expensive, because Coverity is very expensive, and while SonarQube is not cheap, it is still less expensive than Coverity.
They always offer around a two-year contract, but we always take a one-year contract because it's expensive.
The freemium version of SonarQube Server offers excellent value, especially compared to the high costs of Snyk.
It's not the most expensive solution.
Overall, Veracode's pricing is lower and more scalable than many alternatives in the market.
If there's a security gap, you'll never know the cost or effect.
Some of the static code analysis capabilities are the most beneficial.
I find SonarQube Cloud very easy to use and simple to integrate initially.
It gives precise reports compared to Coverity and has a slightly lower number of false positives.
It offers confidence by preventing exposure to vulnerabilities and helps ensure that we are not deploying vulnerable code into production.
The best features in Veracode include static analysis and the early detection of vulnerable libraries; it integrates with tools such as Jenkins.
It fixes issues directly in the IDE while you're doing it.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) | 19.3% |
| Veracode | 6.9% |
| Other | 73.8% |


| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 41 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 24 |
| Large Enterprise | 79 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 70 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 43 |
| Large Enterprise | 112 |
SonarQube provides comprehensive support for multi-language development, custom coding rules, and quality gates, integrated seamlessly into CI/CD pipelines. It empowers teams with clear insights through intuitive dashboards, identifying vulnerabilities, code smells, and technical debt.
SonarQube is renowned for its extensive capabilities in static code analysis, making it an invaluable tool for maintaining code quality. By fully integrating into development processes, it allows organizations to manage vulnerabilities and ensure compliance with coding standards. Its extensive community and open-source roots contribute to its accessibility, while robust dashboards facilitate code quality monitoring. Despite its strengths, feedback suggests enhancing analysis speed, better integration with DevOps tools, and refining the user interface. Users also point to the need for handling false positives effectively and expanding on AI-based features for dynamic code analysis.
What are SonarQube's main features?In industries like finance and healthcare, SonarQube aids in obtaining regulatory compliance through rigorous code quality assessments. It is implemented to enhance cybersecurity by identifying potential vulnerabilities, while ensuring code meets the stringent standards demanded in these fields. As part of a broader development ecosystem, its integration in CI/CD pipelines ensures smooth and efficient software delivery, catering to phases from code inception to deployment, effectively supporting large-scale and critical software applications.
Veracode is a leading provider of application security solutions, offering tools to identify, mitigate, and prevent vulnerabilities across the software development lifecycle. Its cloud-based platform integrates security into DevOps workflows, helping organizations ensure that their code remains secure and compliant with industry standards.
Veracode supports multiple application security testing types, including static analysis (SAST), dynamic analysis (DAST), software composition analysis (SCA), and manual penetration testing. These tools are designed to help developers detect vulnerabilities early in development while maintaining speed in deployment. Veracode also emphasizes scalability, offering features for enterprises that manage a large number of applications across different teams. Its robust reporting and analytics capabilities allow organizations to continuously monitor their security posture and track progress toward remediation.
What are the key features of Veracode?
What benefits should users consider in Veracode reviews?
Veracode is widely adopted in industries like finance, healthcare, and government, where compliance and security are critical. It helps these organizations maintain strict security standards while enabling rapid development through its integration with Agile and DevOps methodologies.
Veracode helps businesses secure their applications efficiently, ensuring they can deliver safe and compliant software at scale.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.