# Groovy vs. Java Scan Results

**URL:** <https://community.sonarsource.com/t/groovy-vs-java-scan-results/23316>\
**Category:** SonarQube Server / Community Build\
**Created:** [April 20, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/groovy-vs-java-scan-results/23316 "2020-04-20T15:31:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Blake\_Kizer](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/blake_kizer/32/10834_2.png) [@Blake\_Kizer](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Blake_Kizer)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/groovy-vs-java-scan-results/23316/1 "2020-04-20T15:31:04Z")

</div>

SQ Version: 8.2 (build 32929)

I have a project with a groovy file and equivalent java file. The SonarQube Java scan finds many more vulns than the Groovy scan. Seems like SQ Groovy support isn’t as robust as Java support? But…could be a mis-configuration on my side. Any guidance would be appreciated.

 ![image (3)](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/uploads/sonarcommunity/original/2X/f/f14dfeccbfdf6745a544a0f5c7768eb9e0dc4e95.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Colin](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/colin/32/55255_2.png) [@Colin](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Colin)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 3:37pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/groovy-vs-java-scan-results/23316/2 "2020-04-20T15:37:36Z")

</div>

Groovy support is provided by a community-supported plugin ([Inform-Software/sonar-groovy](https://github.com/Inform-Software/sonar-groovy)). If you have feedback for them, I’d recommend you get in touch with the maintainer!