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 | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Real-time code quality analysis |
| Extras | None | None | SAST |
| Headcount | 143 | Same | 869 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42% , IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26% | Same | Engineering 28%, IT 8%, sales 21%, marketing 4%, operations 3% and others 36% |
| Headcount growth | +8% , +10%, -8% | Same | +9%, +30%, +58% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | CH, DE, FR, GB, SG and US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | CH and US |
| Reputation | 9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 8.77 from 430 reviews over 10 years on Capterra, G2, Gartner, PeerSpot and TrustRadius |
| Followers | 20K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 51K based on the following: Facebook, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | IDC, Info-Tech Research Group and Omdia |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 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 | Same | 1M to 116M |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 276 CVEs reported to MITRE , ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59% | Same | 1.4M per month. Top 3: 21% IN, 12% US, 10% FR. Others 57% |
| Authority | 32 out of 100 | Same | 53 out of 100 |
| Public vulnerability DB | Discovered and third-party | Same | None |
| Content | Blog , documentation , e-books , glossary , reports, success stories , videos , webinars and white papers | Same | Blog, documentation, videos, webinars and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections , 4 in common and 9 additional | Same | 4 documentation sections, all in common |
| Community | Forum | Same | Forum |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | No |
| Async training | 3 product use courses , all free | Same | No |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct or with any of its 31 partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS, Azure and GCP |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | 14-day free trial and PoV |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales, marketplaces and public web |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 2 plans (team, enterprise). First transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Monthly |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | 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 | Same | 100K LoCs |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | LoC |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | SonarQube |
| PTaaS | No | Yes | No |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | No |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | No |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | No |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | Not applicable |
| Zero-day vulnerabilities | None | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | None |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy , availability and response | Availability |
| Minimum availability | >=99.95% per minute LTM | Same | >=99% per month |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | No |
| Accreditations | CNA and Penetration Testing by CREST | Same | None |
| Hacker certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | 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 | 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 | 5Â , 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 1Â | 3, all in common |
| Outputs | 5Â , 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 2Â | 5, 2 in common, and 3 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | SonarQube |
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | 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 | Yes | Yes |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Breaks the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources | Same | No information available |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | No information available |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | Assign severity to rules |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house |
| SCA | 23 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 12 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 22 package managers | Same | No |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| **Source SAST ** (languages) | 12 , all in common | Same | 26, 12 in common and 14 additional |
| **Source SAST ** (frameworks) | 22 , none in common | Same | 1 |
| Custom rules | No | No | SAST |
| IaC | 6Â , 3 in common and 3 additional | 4Â , 3 in common and 1 additional | 6, all in common |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same , plus 2 types of binaries | No |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types | Same | No |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| ASM | No | No | No |
| Secrets | 15 secrets types | Same , plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | Yes. No information available |
| AI | 3 functions , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 function in common |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | MPL-2.0 license . Totally equivalent to the paid version | Not applicable | LGPL v3 license. Partially equivalent to the paid version |
| Provisioning as code | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy information) |
| Regions | US | Same | US |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | No incidents |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | SonarQube |
| SCM | 6 , none in common | Same | 2, none in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 | Same | None |
| ChatOps | None | None | None |
| IDE | 3 , 2 in common and 1 additional | Same | 12, 2 in common and 10 additional |
| CI/CD | 21 , 5 in common and 16 additional | Same | 5, all in common |
| SCA | Native | Same | None |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | Native |
| DAST | Native | Same | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 3 | Same | None |
| CSPM | Native | Same | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | Native |
| Remediation | None | None | 3 |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
Tip
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
Tip
Free trialSearch 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 .
Last updated on