The Attached PDF contains Functional comparison CAST and SONAR. Please let me know your feedback.

1. CAST Vs SONAR
www.scmGalaxy.com
sG
Published by: Rajesh Kumar
rajesh@scmGalaxy.com
scmGalaxy

2. Agenda
 Functional comparison CAST and SONAR (10’)

3. Functionality coverage - summary
 Regarding SEP mandatory features
 CAST covers 75% of SEP mandatory features
 Sonar covers 65% of SEP mandatory features
 From the overall functionality
 CAST covers 80% of all functionality
 Sonar covers 60% of all functionality
 Between the tools themselves
 CAST covers 65% of Sonar functionality
 Sonar covers 50% of CAST functionality

4. CAST vs SONAR: Technologies covered
Technology CAST SONAR 1.11
 Strong point
for CAST Java Y Y
C++ Y Y
 SONAR covers C Y Plug-in in dev
the 2 main JSP Y N (tbc)
techno’s in
Amadeus: SQL Server Y N
Java and C++ .NET, VB Y N
and soon C PL/SQL Y Plug-in 2000 €
PHP Y Plug-in in dev
 This
difference in ASP Y N
technologies Oracle Y N
covered BO Y N
applies also to EAI, ETL Y N
other
commercial Main Frame Y N
tools SAP, SIEBEL Y N

5. Common CAST and SONAR functionalities
Common Functionality Weight CAST SONAR
1.11
 Most of the Scanning of quality rules 3 Y Y
major
functionaliti Provide global scores 3 Y Y
es are grouped in health factors
(ISO 9126)
covered by Historical data/results, 3 Y Y
CAST and versioning
SONAR Access to results via 3 Y Y
dashboard
Drill down of violations 3 Y Y
Cartography of the 2 Y Available
application via Maven
Security 2 Y Y

6. Extra CAST Functionalities
Common Functionality Weight CAST SONAR 1.11
 Action plans Generation of action plans 3 Y N
not covered
by SONAR Access via Eclipse plug-in 3 Y N
for the developer
Violation diff. mechanism 3 Y N
 No access via
Eclipse plug- Function points/Effort 3 Y N
ins for the estimation
developer in Risk Propagation Index 2 Y N
SONAR
Impact analysis intra 2 Y To be checked
technology with Maven
 Internal Quality architecture intra 1 Y SonarJ plug-in
Amadeus J2EE (not free)
discussions
Quality architecture inter 1 Y N
regarding technologies
function
points and Benchmarking with other 1 Y N
effort companies
estimation Impact analysis 1 Y N
Inter-layers & technologies

7. Extra SONAR Functionalities
 CAST has no
Common Weight CAST SONAR 1.11
plans to enter in
Functionality
the Unit Test
domain (out of Unit Tests execution 3 N Y
the scope of the
product) Analysis of the code 3 N Y
coverage
 Integration with Integration with SEP QA 3 N Y*
SEP QA intranet intranet for CRs and
to have CR’s and PTRs info
PTR’s info Estimation of the 2 N Y
technical debt of the
correction, per
 Technical debt is component/class
interesting to
estimate the
effort of Y*: This functionality has been developed internally
correction

8. Pros CAST SONAR
Professional solution Easy to extend functionalities via
plug-ins
Sophisticated dashboard Flexibility to analyse several
indicators together and see the
evolution over a given period of time
 The
Databases of Generation of action plans and Execution of Unit Tests (and capture
assignement to the development the failed percentage)
SONAR and team
CAST look
easy to Access via Eclipse plug-in Unit Test code coverage
interrogate Technologies coverage Several ways to see the results
(clouds, treemap, hotspots, historical
...).
 This may Benchmarking / Effort Open source: many plug-ins,
allow the reactivity
integration of It can be used as ‘douane Database is easy to access and
data applicative’ for outsourcing (via allows integration with other
SLAs) dahsboards.
extracted by
SONAR and Documentation of the product
CAST in other and rules
dashboards
Database is easy to access via
views and allows integration with
other dahsboards.

9. Cons
CAST Sonar
Price of licenses: 2 K€ à 4 K€ Lack of documentation for the
(depending on the number): developer
- 2800 € for a limited scope of 100
licenses
- 2200 € for all SEP sites
Open source: Duration of the
product depends on the
community

10. www.scmGalaxy.com
sG Published by: Rajesh Kumar
rajesh@scmGalaxy.com