We surveyed over 550 Software Professionals to discover the latest trends and insights on code review adoption and practices. Here are the results!

1. Quality Matters: The 2014 State of Code Review Survey Results

2. Contents
About the survey
Why does code review matter
Current state of code review
–Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported
–By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution
Obstacles to reviews
–Code review in general, tool-supported
Conclusion & recommendations

3. About the survey
Conducted by SmartBear from August- October 2014
2nd annual survey – first launched in 2013
Over 600 respondents, 560 completed responses
Conducted via email, social media, website

4. Contents
About the survey
Why does code review matter
Current state of code review
–Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported
–By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution
Obstacles to reviews
–Code review in general, tool-supported
Conclusion & recommendations

5. What Do You Feel is the Number One Thing a Company Can Do to Improve Code Quality?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Code
Review
Unit
Testing
Integration
Testing
Other
Function
Testing
35%
24%
17%
13%
12%
% Responded

6. Satisfaction with Software Quality is Linked with Ability to Ship Releases
87%
13%
Able to Ship Regularly
54%
46%
Unable to Ship Regularly/Neutral
Satisfied
Dissatisfied/Neutral

7. What Do You Think Are The Most Important Benefits of Code Review?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
84%
62%
61%
56%
48%
27%
26%
23%
21%
16%
% Responded

8. Contents
About the survey
Why does code review matter
Current state of code review
–Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported
–By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution
Obstacles to reviews
–code review in general, tool-supported
Conclusion & recommendations

9. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Industry
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100%
83%
81%
80%
79%
75%
75%
73%
72%
69%
58%
% Responded
* Indicates small subsample

10. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Industry
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
67%
65%
63%
60%
57%
52%
52%
52%
48%
40%
40%
% Responded
* Indicates small subsample

11. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Industry
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
86%
72%
70%
67%
66%
65%
63%
60%
56%
55%
35%
% Responded
* Indicates small subsample

12. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Company Size
39%
49%
63%
40%
77%
76%
83%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Less than
100
employees
100 to 500
employees
500 to
2000
employees
2000+
employees
Uses Ad-Hoc Code
Review
Uses Ad-Hoc Code
Review Daily/Weekly

13. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Company Size
17%
16%
19%
18%
53%
43%
54%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than
100
employees
100 to 500
employees
500 to
2000
employees
2000+
employees
Uses Meeting-Based
Code Review
Uses Meeting-Based
Code Review
Daily/Weekly

14. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Company Size
52%
63%
75%
71%
33%
41%
56%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Less than
100
employees
100 to 500
employees
500 to
2000
employees
2000+
employees
Uses Tool-Based
Code Review
Uses Tool-Based
Code Review
Daily/Weekly

15. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size
67%
81%
76%
81%
27%
51%
50%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Less than
5 people
5 to 20
people
20 to 50
people
More than
50 people
Uses Ad-Hoc Code
Review
Uses Ad-Hoc Code
Review Daily/Weekly

16. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size
44%
51%
61%
68%
8%
16%
28%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Less than
5 people
5 to 20
people
20 to 50
people
More than
50 people
Uses Meeting-Based
Code Review
Uses Meeting-Based
Code Review
Daily/Weekly

17. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size
48%
66%
80%
81%
27%
44%
59%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Less than
5 people
5 to 20
people
20 to 50
people
More than
50 people
Uses Tool-Based Code
Review
Uses Tool-Based Code
Review Daily/Weekly

18. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution
73%
78%
78%
46%
41%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
One location
Two or more
locations or
countries
Multiple sites, but
team is colocated
Uses Ad-Hoc Code
Review
Uses Ad-Hoc Code
Review Daily/Weekly

19. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution
52%
53%
54%
16%
20%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
One location
Two or more
locations/countries
Multiple sites, but
team is colocated
Uses Meeting-Based
Code Review
Use Meeting-Based Code
Review Daily/Weekly

20. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution
51%
70%
65%
28%
49%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
One location
Two or more
locations/countries
Multiple sites, but team
is colocated
Uses Tool-Based
Code Review
Use Tool-Based
Code Review
Daily/Weekly

21. % of Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality
76%
24%
Satisfied
74%
26%
Dissatisfied/Neutral
Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review
Does Not Use Ad-Hoc Code Review

22. % of Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality
56%
44%
Satisfied
44%
56%
Dissatisfied/Neutral
Uses Meeting-Based Code Review
Does Not Use Meeting-Based Code…

23. % of Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality
67%
33%
Satisfied
56%
44%
Dissatisfied/Neutral
Uses Tool-Based Code Review
Does Not Use Tool-Based Code Review

24. Do You Have A Preferred Source Control System?
0%
10%
20%
30%
27%
26%
15%
10%
9%
4%
4%
5%
% Responded

25. Contents
About the survey
Why does code review matter
Current state of code review
–Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported
–By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution
Obstacles to reviews
–Code review in general, tool-supported
Conclusion & recommendations

26. What Obstacles Prevent You From Doing Any Type of Code Review
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Workload
Deadline/Time Constraints
Lack of Manpower
Reviews are too Time-
Consuming
Location of Team Members
Reviews are
Tedious/Repetitive
63%
46%
34%
25%
18%
15%
% Responded

27. What Obstacles Prevent You From Doing Tool-Based Type of Code Review
38%
36%
30%
26%
17%
14%
14%
9%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Workload
Lack of Budget
Deadline/Time Constraints
Lack of Managerial Buy-In
Lack of Manpower
SCM Integration
Reviews are too Time-Consuming
Reviews are Tedious/Repetitive
Location of Team Members
% Responded

28. I Often Find It Challenging to Collaborate with Team Members on Large Projects
6%
29%
27%
34%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 -
Strongly
Disagree
2 -
Disagree
3 - Neither
Disagree
Nor Agree
4 - Agree
5 -
Strongly
Agree
% Responded

29. Satisfaction with Quality is Linked with How Challenging it is to Collaborate with Team Members
65%
35%
Satisfied
50%
50%
Dissatisfied/Neutral
Not Challenging/Neutral
Challenging

30. My Company Is Able to Get Releases Out On Time Regularly
1%
15%
18%
51%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1 -
Strongly
Disagree
2 -
Disagree
3 - Neither
Disagree
Nor Agree
4 - Agree
5 -
Strongly
Agree
% Responded

31. I am Satisfied with the Overall Quality of the Software I Help Produce
1%
11%
13%
61%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 - Strongly
Disagree
2 -
Disagree
3 - Neither
Disagree
Nor Agree
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly
Agree
% Responded

32. Contents
About the survey
Why does code review matter
Current state of code review
–Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported
–By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution
Obstacles to reviews
–Code review in general, tool-supported
Conclusion & recommendations

33. Developers and Testers, Managers and End-Users Agree on the Importance of Tool-Based Code Review
66%
53%
65%
63%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Development
Testing
Manager
End-User
Implementing a Code Review Tool Is An Important Priority

34. Conclusion and recommendations
Code quality matters
–Frequent releases, time to market, satisfied customers
Companies in many industries do code review
–Ad-hoc reviews are more popular than meeting-based
•75% ad hoc reviews, 50% meeting-based reviews, 60% tool-based reviews
–Perceived to improve quality
Obstacles to effectiveness
–Workload and deadlines = planning (as ever)
Tool-based reviews
–Use more regularly
–Use tools to support reviews – best of both worlds