Call for Paper - January 2023 Edition
IJCA solicits original research papers for the January 2023 Edition. Last date of manuscript submission is December 20, 2022. Read More

A Comparative Analysis of Clone Detection Tools: Solid SDD and CCFinderX

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Year of Publication: 2016
Muhammad Ilyas, Hafiz Anas Bilal, Muhammad Hummayun, Mubeen Rafi, Almas Kanwal

Muhammad Ilyas, Hafiz Anas Bilal, Muhammad Hummayun, Mubeen Rafi and Almas Kanwal. A Comparative Analysis of Clone Detection Tools: Solid SDD and CCFinderX. International Journal of Computer Applications 148(14):11-16, August 2016. BibTeX

	author = {Muhammad Ilyas and Hafiz Anas Bilal and Muhammad Hummayun and Mubeen Rafi and Almas Kanwal},
	title = {A Comparative Analysis of Clone Detection Tools: Solid SDD and CCFinderX},
	journal = {International Journal of Computer Applications},
	issue_date = {August 2016},
	volume = {148},
	number = {14},
	month = {Aug},
	year = {2016},
	issn = {0975-8887},
	pages = {11-16},
	numpages = {6},
	url = {},
	doi = {10.5120/ijca2016910912},
	publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
	address = {New York, USA}


There are several tools available for code clones detection and removal. Over the last few years much research has been done on assessment of these tools. Every tool has its efficiencies and deficiencies which researchers tried to evaluate. But the imperative point that we observed while analyzing these assessments is that there is no benchmark defined in this context so far. There is no clear picture that depicts which tool is better than the other and why? This paper is a contribution in this scaffold. Two clone detection tools SolidSDD and CCFinderX are evaluated and a comparison of these two is on hand here. Some experiments are performed on an open source software i.e. VLC media player, and it is revealed how different clone detection tools provide different results when study the same system. Reasons for these variations in results are endeavor to find out at this juncture.


  1. Fowler M, Beck K, Brant J, Opdyke W, Roberts D; “Refactoring improving the design of existing code”;  Addison-Wesley, Boston; USA, (1999)
  2. Juergens E.; Deissenboeck F.; Hummel B, Wagner S; "Do code clones matter?" Software Engineering, 2009. ICSE 2009. IEEE 31st International Conference on , vol., no., pp.485,495, 16-24 May 2009
  3. Kim M, Sazawal V, S.; Notkin D, Murphy G; “An empirical study of code clone genealogies”; ESEC/FSE-13Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering. pp 187-196
  4. Kaur P, Kaur H, Kaur R; “Comparison of Clone Detection Tools: CONQAT and SolidSDD”. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Volume 2, Issue 5 May 2012.
  5. Rysselberghe F A, Demeyer S; “Evaluating clone detection techniques”; Proceedings ELISA’03 (International Workshop on Evolution of Large-scale Industrial Software Applications), pages 25–36; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, September 2003.


Code cloning, clone detection