Zolt SecurityAI code review
Zolt vs SonarQube · Static analysis

SonarQube finds patterns. Zolt finds attack paths.

SonarQube has spent two decades matching code against rules. Zolt reads the change, walks it from input to sink, and tells you whether anyone can actually get hurt. Different question, different answer.

Zolt
An adversarial reviewer: source-to-sink tracing on every change, an exploitability verdict, and the fix.
SonarQube
A veteran quality gate: rules, patterns and severity guesses, tuned and maintained by you.
Head to head

The whole argument, row by row.

Capability
SonarQube
Zolt
How it analyzes
Rule and pattern matching against quality profiles you configure
Reads the full change against a model of your app — routes, trust boundaries, data flow
The finding you get
A rule ID and a severity guess
An exploitability verdict, the source-to-sink path, and a patch
False positives
You triage them — the famous tax of static analysis
Findings ship with proof of reachability; the unreachable ones don’t ship at all
Business logic
Not expressible as patterns, so out of scope
Where the agent spends its time — authz, IDOR, injection chains
Secrets, IaC, SCA, SBOM
Ecosystem add-ons, wired up and maintained by you
In the same review — one agent, five domains
Where it runs
CI pipelines and a server you feed
Inside the pull request, on every push
Pentesting
No
Agents map the surface, researchers confirm the report — priced in credits, retest included
Pricing shape
Per line of code, tiered by what you enable
$30 a seat. Pentests when you need them
Where SonarQube stops

Three things it structurally can’t do for you.

◇ Path, not pattern
Every finding carries the route attacker input takes — where it enters, where it lands, and why an attacker can walk it.
◇ A verdict you can act on
Exploitable or not, with proof. Your queue becomes decisions instead of an archaeology project.
◇ The pentest in the building
The same agents that review your PRs run the pentest. Findings arrive pre-chained; a researcher signs the report.
Questions

Asked before you ask them.

We already run SonarQube. Why add Zolt?
Because the two ask different questions. SonarQube’s gate says the code matches its rules; Zolt says whether the change is attackable. Teams keep the quality gate and hand Zolt the security verdict — or give both jobs to Zolt and retire the server.
Will Zolt flood the PR like SAST tools do?
No. A finding only reaches the PR with the path that makes it real: where input enters, where damage lands, why an attacker can walk it. No path, no comment.
Who replaces whom?
Both answers exist. Teams that keep Sonar for code smells use Zolt for everything security. Teams that only tolerated Sonar for its security rules usually don’t renew it.
How long does switching take?
One app install. Zolt reviews the next push — no profiles to tune, no gates to wire, no server to feed.
Keep comparingZolt vs SnykZolt vs CodeRabbitZolt vs GitHub Copilot

SonarQube was built to gate merges against patterns. Zolt was built to stop exploitable code from merging. Your attackers only care about one of those.

Point Zolt at your next pull request.

Connect a repo and the first PR gets reviewed — path, verdict, patch. Public repositories are free forever.