SonarQube
Read the same way at every company size.
The standing depends on who is buying. Every model is asked the same questions for each company size.
Semgrep AppSec Platform is first at 82%.
Semgrep AppSec Platform is first at 71%. 2 of 14 models made it the first choice when asked directly.
Checkmarx One is first at 53%.
Why models recommend it
“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 question · 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 question · first choice
“I would recommend SonarQube (commercial or self‑hosted) as your primary static code security scanner”GLM 4.7 FlashX · Paraphrase question · first choice
“SonarQube and CodeQL are the most widely adopted today, especially for web/backend teams.”GLM 4.7 FlashX · Comparative question · first choice
What gives them pause
“Not a true SAST tool... Inadequate for compliance (PCI-DSS, SOC 2)”Kimi K2 · Negative question · warning
“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 question · warning
“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 question · warning
“SonarQube editions chosen on "security" branding alone: Check which security rules, languages, and taint-analysis capabilities are included”GPT-6 Luna · Negative question · warning
Also on the shortlist
The products named in the same answers as SonarQube, over the 219 answers that named it, and how often each was the first choice instead.
| Product | Named together | Picked instead | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 178 | 89 | Compare → | |
| 143 | 33 | View → | |
| 122 | 4 | Compare → | |
| 114 | 9 | View → | |
| 81 | 2 | View → | |
| 67 | 1 | Compare → | |
| 58 | 4 | View → | |
| 37 | 5 | View → | |
| 35 | 6 | Compare → | |
| 32 | 0 | View → |
What the models named instead of SonarQube →
A side-by-side page exists where both products are among a category's top eight.
How this is measured
Fourteen AI models from 12 labs are asked the same buying questions six ways, for three company sizes. Standings refresh every edition.
Gane sells AI visibility software. No company can pay to change a result.
Read the method →Sources returned with these answers
Fourteen of the fourteen models returned a source list in this edition: five return the pages they cited and nine the search results they consulted. These counts come from 178 of the 219 answers that named SonarQube and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
No domain is on file for SonarQube, so its own site is not marked. Forty were to the publisher's own pages (the Gane Index), which the models cite like any other source; they are not counted as a third party.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Warning | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |