Choosing Kiuwan Over SonarQube: A Comprehensive Comparison for Developers and Managers

As an intensive user of both Kiuwan and SonarQube, I have spent considerable time evaluating these tools based on different criteria such as pricing, ease of use, accuracy, ergonomics, configuration, continuous integration, and reporting. In this article, I will outline my findings and help you make an informed choice.

Pricing

Winner: Kiuwan

One of the key considerations when choosing a software analysis tool is the cost. Kiuwan offers a lower price point for a wide range of programming languages, including C/C and COBOL analysis. You can perform a one-shot analysis at a cheaper cost and pay based on the volume of the analyzed source code. In contrast, SonarQube has a more complex licensing model, which can be more expensive for certain use cases.

Ease of Use

Winner: Kiuwan

For managers who need a quick software review without deep technical knowledge, Kiuwan is the better option. It is designed to be user-friendly and does not require extensive setup. You can directly use the Web UI or client to upload your code for analysis. For those with technical knowledge, Kiuwan provides more precise results. SonarQube, while more flexible, requires deeper familiarity with tools like Maven to trigger an analysis.

Accuracy/Coding Quality Analysis

Winner: SonarQube

Recent improvements in SonarQube have led to better code analysis quality. The new code analyzers are more accurate and less prone to false positives. While this comes with the potential disadvantage of proprietary analyzers, the overall quality of analysis in SonarQube is superior to Kiuwan in languages like C/C and PHP. Kiuwan is still preferred for these languages due to its cheaper costs.

Ergonomics

Winner: Kiuwan

Many users prefer the user interface of Kiuwan over SonarQube. SonarQube's user interface is frequently updated, making it difficult to determine if these changes improve or deteriorate its usability. Kiuwan offers a straightforward and limited set of information without extensive configuration, which is often sufficient for most users. However, some indicator formulas in Kiuwan are not fully documented.

Configuration

Winner: SonarQube

For flexibility and customization, SonarQube is the more mature product. It has a wide range of configuration possibilities and extension plugins, allowing you to tailor the code analysis to your specific needs. Kiuwan, while simpler, lacks the extensive configuration options available in SonarQube.

Continuous Integration

Winner: SonarQube

Integrating Kiuwan into a Continuous Integration (CI)/Continuous Delivery (CD) pipeline can be challenging due to the lack of comprehensive plugin documentation and configuration options. In contrast, SonarQube has a well-documented ecosystem, with substantial support available on Stack Overflow and GitHub.

Reporting

Winner: Kiuwan

Kiuwan provides an excellent reporting system, generating simple, visually appealing, and easy-to-generate PDF reports. This is a significant advantage over SonarQube, especially in terms of printing and sharing. With SonarQube, creating comprehensive project reports becomes much more difficult, particularly in the latest versions. You may need to rely on their REST API for data extraction.

Based on the criteria outlined above, while both Kiuwan and SonarQube have unique strengths, the choice ultimately depends on your specific needs, budget, and workflow. For organizations that require lower-cost analysis and a simpler setup, Kiuwan might be the better choice. For those prioritizing accuracy and flexibility, SonarQube could be more suitable.