We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Kiuwan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"It is a stable product."
"The most valuable feature of Checkmarx is the user interface, it is very easy to use. We do not need to configure anything, we only have to scan to see the results."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I like that I can scan the code without sending it to the Kiuwan cloud. I can do it locally on my device. When the local analyzer finishes, the results display on the dashboard in the cloud. It's essential for security purposes to be able to scan my code locally."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"Kiuwan's support has room for improvement. You can only open a ticket is through email, and the support team is outside of our country. They should have a support number or chat."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"In Kiuwan there are sometimes duplicates found in the dependency scan under the "insights" tab. It's unclear to me why these duplicates are appearing, and it would be helpful if the application teams could investigate further."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and Snyk, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap. See our Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.