Static application security testing · November 2026 Edition
SonarQube vs Aikido Security
Two of fourteen models named SonarQube first on the direct prompt; two named Aikido Security. SonarQube was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Aikido Security by eight and SonarQube carries 67 labels and Aikido Security 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
SonarQube
accepted challengerNamed in three categories this edition.
Named in ten categories this edition.
First-choice share11%7%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate16%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels6711A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, SonarQube reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Semgrep AppSec Platform was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Semgrep AppSec Platform vs SonarQube · Semgrep AppSec Platform vs Aikido Security · SonarQube vs Snyk Code
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the static application security testing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
SonarQubeFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAikido Security
Direct221 against SonarQube
Paraphrase311 against SonarQube
Comparative202 against SonarQube
Budget-constrained001 against Aikido Security
Scale-constrained001 against SonarQube
Negative006 against SonarQube · 1 against Aikido Security
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where SonarQube and Aikido Security stood in it.
| Model | DirectSO | ParaphraseSO | ComparativeSO | Budget-constrainedSO | Scale-constrainedSO | NegativeSO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO | |
| GPT-5.4 mini | SO | SO | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO | |
| Perplexity Sonar | SO | SO | SO | SO | ||
| Grok 4.20 | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO | |
| Mistral Small | SO | SO | SO | SO | ||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO |
| Llama 4 Maverick | SO | SO | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO | |
| Kimi K2 | SO | SO | SO | SO | SO | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | SO | SO | SO | SO | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | SO | SO | SO | SO | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | SO | SO | SO | SO | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | SO | SO | SO | SO |
SO SonarQube Aikido SecuritySO first choiceSO named as an alternativeSO argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, SonarQube on the left and Aikido Security on the right.
Aikido SecuritySO first choiceSO named as an alternativeSO argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, SonarQube on the left and Aikido Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where SonarQube and Aikido Security stood in it.
SonarQube first, Aikido Security not the choice
2 of 14 modelsAikido Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Snyk, SonarQube alternatives: Mend SAST, Semgrep AppSec Platform
GLM 4.7 FlashXSnyk Code, SonarQube alternatives: Checkmarx One, GitLab SAST, Semgrep AppSec Platform
Aikido Security first, SonarQube an alternative
2 of 14 modelsSonarQube was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Mistral SmallAikido Security, Semgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: SonarQube
Muse Glimmer 30BAikido Security alternatives: Semgrep AppSec Platform, Snyk Code, SonarQube
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashSnyk Code alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Semgrep AppSec Platform, SonarQube
Perplexity SonarSemgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: CodeQL, Snyk Code, SonarQube
Grok 4.20Semgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: Aikido Security, CodeAnt AI, GitLab SAST, Snyk Code
DeepSeek V4 FlashSemgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: Snyk Code, SonarQube
Llama 4 MaverickSemgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: Aikido Security, Snyk Code, SonarQube, ZeroPath
Qwen 3.7 FlashSemgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, GitLab SAST, Mend SAST, SonarQube
Kimi K2Semgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: Aikido Security, Snyk Code, SonarQube
MiniMax M2.5Semgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: Snyk Code, SonarQube
Neither was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniGitHub Advanced Security alternatives: Checkmarx One
GPT-6 LunaSemgrep AppSec Platform alternatives: GitHub Code Security, Snyk Code
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
SonarQube leads by fourteen points.
SonarQube14%#2 of 14
Aikido Security0%#7 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
SonarQube leads by four points.
SonarQube11%#2 of 11
Aikido Security7%#3 of 11Enterprise
SonarQube leads by ten points.
SonarQube12%#3 of 10
Aikido Security2%#– of 10What the models said about SonarQube
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Not a true SAST tool... Inadequate for compliance (PCI-DSS, SOC 2)” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“SonarQube is primarily a code quality platform, not a security-first SAST tool... "should not be used as a sole SAST tool in security-sensitive environments."” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“On a typical Java or TypeScript codebase, 40-60% of initial findings require developer review to determine whether they represent actual risk” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“The most widely used, adopted by 59% of developers. It's known for its ease of use, integration with CI/CD pipelines, and broad language support.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with SonarQube or Snyk Code due to their balance of features, pricing, and ease of use” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice
“I would recommend SonarQube (commercial or self‑hosted) as your primary static code security scanner” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Aikido Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“paid "Basic" plan starts around $350/month, which may be too high for very tight budgets” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“often criticized as not providing novel detection beyond Semgrep's ruleset” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Aikido Security is the most frequently cited mid-market-specific SAST platform with transparent flat pricing and an all-in-one developer workflow.” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.