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."Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"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."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application."
"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 of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"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 personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"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."
"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"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."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"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."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
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.
