# Need some insights on Jacoco code coverage vs Sonar Qube Coverage

**URL:** <https://community.sonarsource.com/t/need-some-insights-on-jacoco-code-coverage-vs-sonar-qube-coverage/109967>\
**Category:** SonarQube Server / Community Build\
**Tags:** coverage\
**Created:** [February 27, 2024, 10:31am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/need-some-insights-on-jacoco-code-coverage-vs-sonar-qube-coverage/109967 "2024-02-27T10:31:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rockstarravo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/rockstarravo/32/54800_2.png) [@Rockstarravo](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Rockstarravo)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2024, 10:31am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/need-some-insights-on-jacoco-code-coverage-vs-sonar-qube-coverage/109967/1 "2024-02-27T10:31:03Z")

</div>

Hi Team,

we’ve been using sonar qube for code quality and code coverage. w.r.t to code coverage the Jacoco test coverage is being executed to gain the respective types of coverages from the code here.

Surprised to see unlikely coverage of both, although the origin of the data is from Jacoco.

**Concerns:**

1. Assist us in filling the gap here or any incorrect understandings
2. Also brief us on the process of post-report recovery from Jacoco
3. we wish to see the same results on both windows, Kindly walk us through to achieve it

Sonarqube Version:

```
   Community Edition * Version 9.9.1 (build 69595)

```

Jacoco Version:

0.8.7

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ganncamp](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/ganncamp/32/1261_2.png) [@ganncamp](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/ganncamp)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2024, 2:05pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/need-some-insights-on-jacoco-code-coverage-vs-sonar-qube-coverage/109967/2 "2024-02-28T14:05:41Z")

</div>

Hi,

Welcome to the community!

First, your JaCoCo version seems [a bit dusty](https://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/) at this point.

Beyond that, it’s not fully clear to me what your concern is.

I take it there’s some discrepancy between what you see in the JaCoCo report and what you see in SonarQube?

&nbsp;  
Ann

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rockstarravo](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/rockstarravo/32/54800_2.png) [@Rockstarravo](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Rockstarravo)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 10:32am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/need-some-insights-on-jacoco-code-coverage-vs-sonar-qube-coverage/109967/3 "2024-03-04T10:32:36Z")

</div>

hey,

Thanks for reaching back, certainly we’ve been experiencing different values across both places

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ganncamp](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/ganncamp/32/1261_2.png) [@ganncamp](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/ganncamp)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 1:29pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/need-some-insights-on-jacoco-code-coverage-vs-sonar-qube-coverage/109967/4 "2024-03-04T13:29:36Z")

</div>

Hi,

When a file is included in a coverage report, we go 100% by what the report says for that file. For files omitted from a report… [this blog](https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/executable_lines/) has some age on it, but it should help.

&nbsp;  
Ann