SonarQube
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to SonarQube's? The following comparison table enables you to
discern the performance of both providers across various attributes essential for meeting your company’s
cybersecurity needs. To better understand each attribute, read their descriptions on the dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
SonarQube
|
|
Focus
|
Real-time code quality analysis
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
SAST
|
| Headcount | 869 | ||
| Headcount distribution |
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 28%, IT 8%, sales 21%,
marketing 4%, operations 3% and others 36%
|
|
| Headcount growth |
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+9%, +30%, +58%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
CH, DE, FR, GB, SG and US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
CH and US | |
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
8.77 from 430 reviews over 10 years on
Capterra, G2, Gartner, PeerSpot and TrustRadius
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
51K based on the following: Facebook,
LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
| Research firms |
None
|
None
|
IDC, Info-Tech Research Group and Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2008
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$457M USD in 2 rounds from 4 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Acquired 0 times and made 2
acquisitions
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 116M
|
|
| CVEs as CNA Researcher |
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, SOC 2 Type II
|
|
| Bug bounty |
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
1.4M per month. Top 3: 21% IN, 12% US,
10% FR. Others 57%
|
|
|
Authority
|
53 out of 100
|
||
| Public vulnerability DB |
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation, videos, webinars
and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 4 in common
and 9 additional
|
4 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
Forum | ||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No | |
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its 31 partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and GCP | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Free trial
|
14-day free trial and PoV
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
| Open demo |
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplaces and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
2 plans (team, enterprise). First
transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
Code quality, SAST and secrets |
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
100K LoCs
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
LoC
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
32 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
SonarQube
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
|
None
|
|
SLA
|
Availability | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
>=99% per month | |
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 10 in common and 57
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
10 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools
|
|
|
False positives
|
1.27 times better
|
2 times better |
46% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
3.17 times better
|
1.10 times better
|
24% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 3 in common and 2 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
3, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 2 in common and 3
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
5, 2 in common, and 3 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
SonarQube
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 2 in common and 3
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
3 functionalities, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources
|
No information available | |
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
No information available
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
Assign severity to rules | ||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house
|
||
|
SCA
|
No
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
No
|
||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No |
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12, all in common
|
26, 12 in common and 14 additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
22, none in common
|
1
|
|
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
SAST
|
|
IaC
|
6, 3 in common and 3 additional
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
6, all in common
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
No
|
||
|
API security testing
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
| ASM |
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
Yes. No information available
|
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
1 function in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open source
|
Not applicable
|
LGPL v3 license. Partially equivalent
to the paid version
|
|
| Provisioning as code | Yes | ||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy
information)
|
||
| Regions |
US
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No incidents
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
SonarQube
|
|
SCM
|
6, none in common
|
2, none in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
None
|
||
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
None |
|
IDE
|
3, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
12, 2 in common and 10 additional
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 5 in common and 16 additional
|
5, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
None
|
||
|
Container
|
None | ||
|
SAST
|
Native
|
||
|
DAST
|
None
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
3
|
| Bug bounty |
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information
were sonarsource.com and docs.sonarsource.com, which were supplemented by specialized
information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like SonarQube
Free trial
Search for vulnerabilities in your apps for free with Fluid Attacks' automated security testing! Start
your 21-day free trial and discover the
benefits of the Continuous
Hacking Essential plan. If you prefer the
Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' hacking team, fill out this contact form.