Introducing G2.ai, the future of software buying.Try now
Compare Clang and SonarQube 
Featured Products
Sponsored
You’re seeing this ad based on the product’s relevance to this page. Sponsored content does not receive preferential treatment in any of G2’s ratings.
Endor Labs
Visit Website
Sponsored
You’re seeing this ad based on the product’s relevance to this page. Sponsored content does not receive preferential treatment in any of G2’s ratings.
Aikido Security
Visit Website
Sponsored
You’re seeing this ad based on the product’s relevance to this page. Sponsored content does not receive preferential treatment in any of G2’s ratings.
CAST Highlight
Visit Website
At a Glance
Market Segments
Small-Business (56.3% of reviews)
Enterprise (41.9% of reviews)
Entry-Level Pricing
No pricing available
Free
Clang
Star Rating
(16)4.3 out of 5
Market Segments
Small-Business (56.3% of reviews)
Pros & Cons
Not enough data
Entry-Level Pricing
No pricing available
Learn more about ClangSonarQube
Star Rating
(125)4.5 out of 5
Market Segments
Enterprise (41.9% of reviews)
Pros & Cons
Entry-Level Pricing
Free
Browse all 5 pricing plansSummary
AI Generated Summary
AI-generated. Powered by real user reviews.
- Users report that SonarQube Server excels in Static Code Analysis with a score of 9.0, providing comprehensive insights into code quality, while Clang, although strong, does not match this level of detail.
- Reviewers mention that SonarQube Server's Documentation is particularly helpful, especially in areas like Remediation Suggestions (8.2), which aids developers in addressing code issues effectively, whereas Clang's documentation is perceived as less user-friendly.
- G2 users highlight that SonarQube Server offers better Integration with Development Tools, making it easier to incorporate into existing workflows, while Clang's integration capabilities are more limited, which can hinder efficiency.
- Users on G2 report that Clang shines in Command-Line Tools with a score of 7.2, providing a robust environment for developers who prefer command-line interfaces, whereas SonarQube Server focuses more on GUI-based interactions.
- Reviewers say that SonarQube Server's Analytics and Trends feature (8.3) is superior, offering actionable insights that help teams track code quality over time, while Clang lacks similar depth in analytics.
- Users report that Clang has a higher Detection Rate (8.5), making it effective for identifying vulnerabilities, but SonarQube Server compensates with its strong Issue Tracking (8.2) capabilities, ensuring that identified issues are managed effectively.
Pricing
Entry-Level Pricing
Clang
No pricing availableSonarQube
Community Edition
Free
Explore: https://www.sonarsource.com/plans-and-pricing/
- Free
- Popular & classic languages support
- Integration with DevOps platforms
Free Trial
Clang
No trial information availableSonarQube
Free Trial is available
Ratings
Meets Requirements
9.7
15
8.8
108
Ease of Use
8.2
15
8.5
111
Ease of Setup
Not enough data
8.1
70
Ease of Admin
Not enough data
8.5
63
Quality of Support
8.3
11
8.2
91
Has the product been a good partner in doing business?
Not enough data
8.4
57
Product Direction (% positive)
10.0
15
8.6
105
Features by Category
Administration
Not enough data
7.8
19
Not enough data
6.0
20
Analysis
Not enough data
7.4
21
Not enough data
8.0
20
Not enough data
8.9
22
Not enough data
9.0
22
Testing
Not enough data
6.6
18
Not enough data
5.9
19
Not enough data
6.0
21
Not enough data
6.9
18
Not enough data
6.8
17
Not enough data
8.2
21
Not enough data
6.9
21
Agentic AI - Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Not enough data
Not enough data
Functionality
Not enough data
8.1
31
Not enough data
8.4
30
Not enough data
8.2
29
Management
Not enough data
7.7
27
Not enough data
7.5
25
Not enough data
7.8
27
Bug Reporting
Not enough data
7.7
10
Not enough data
8.0
10
Not enough data
8.3
10
Bug Monitoring
Not enough data
7.8
10
Not enough data
8.2
10
Not enough data
8.5
10
Agentic AI - Bug Tracking
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Functionality - Software Composition Analysis
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Effectiveness - Software Composition Analysis
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Documentation
Not enough data
7.7
35
Not enough data
7.6
35
Not enough data
8.2
36
Security
Not enough data
6.9
33
Not enough data
7.0
32
Not enough data
7.9
33
Risk management - Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
Not enough data
9.3
5
Not enough data
8.7
5
Not enough data
9.0
5
Not enough data
8.9
6
Integration and efficiency - Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
Not enough data
7.8
6
Not enough data
8.6
6
Reporting and Analytics - Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
Not enough data
7.8
6
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
8.3
5
Agentic AI - Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Functionality - Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Management - Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
AI Compliance
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Risk Management & Monitoring
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
AI Lifecycle Management
Not enough data
Not enough data
Access Control and Security
Not enough data
Not enough data
Collaboration and Communication
Not enough data
Not enough data
Agentic AI - AI Governance Tools
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Agentic AI - Static Code Analysis
Not enough data
6.3
8
Not enough data
5.7
7
Not enough data
6.7
8
Performance - AI AppSec Assistants
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Integration - AI AppSec Assistants
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Cloud Visibility
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Security
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Identity
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Not enough data
Categories
Categories
Shared Categories
Clang and SonarQube are categorized as Static Code Analysis
Unique Categories
Clang has no unique categories
SonarQube is categorized as Application Security Posture Management (ASPM), Secure Code Review, Software Development Analytics Tools, Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Bug Tracking, Software Composition Analysis, Software Bill of Materials (SBOM), AI AppSec Assistants, and AI Governance Tools
Reviews
Reviewers' Company Size
Clang
Small-Business(50 or fewer emp.)
Mid-Market(51-1000 emp.)
Enterprise(> 1000 emp.)
SonarQube
Small-Business(50 or fewer emp.)
Mid-Market(51-1000 emp.)
Enterprise(> 1000 emp.)
Small-Business
(50 or fewer emp.)
Mid-Market
(51-1000 emp.)
Enterprise
(> 1000 emp.)
Reviewers' Industry
Information Technology and Services
18.8%
Computer Software
18.8%
Information Services
12.5%
Banking
12.5%
Research
6.3%
Other
31.3%
Information Technology and Services
26.6%
Computer Software
21.8%
Financial Services
6.5%
Hospital & Health Care
3.2%
Computer & Network Security
3.2%
Other
38.7%
Alternatives
Discussions
Clang has no discussions with answers
SonarQube has no discussions with answers
Hunting for software insights?
With over 3 million reviews, we can provide the specific details that help you make an informed software buying decision for your business. Finding the right product is important, let us help.
