We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and Veracode 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."I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"The most valuable feature is the time to resolution, where it tells you how long it is going to take to get to a zero-base or a five-star security rating."
"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."
"We are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"The pricing is worth it."
"I don't have much experience with the solution yet. We're looking at integrating Manual Penetration Testing with JIRA and Bamboo and then building that into a CICD model, so the integration is the most valuable feature so far."
"It's not "one policy fits all." I really like that Veracode allows me to set up specific policies that I can apply to applications."
"Scanning of .war and .jar is key for us."
"Veracode has a nice API that they provide to allow for custom things to be built, or automation. We actually have integrated Veracode into our software development cycle using their API. We actually are able to automatically, every time a new build of a software is completed, submit that application, kick off a scan, and we get results in a much more automated fashion."
"The automation of Veracode is great because we no longer have to run manual testing."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"The most valuable feature is the seamless automation of Veracode via the pipeline, in comparison to other solutions like Fortify SSC, which are complex to integrate through the pipeline."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"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."
"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 the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"Reporting. Some of the reporting features of Veracode do need improvement. They do not have the most robust access to data. That would be a bit more beneficial to a lot of our clients as well as our actual in-house staff. I've been talking to our program management at Veracode about that, and that is actually on their radar to have that improved, I think actually this year."
"Veracode Static Analysis could improve the terminology. For example, I do not know what the sandbox scan does. The terminology and the way they have used it are quite confusing. They should have a process of capturing problems that users are having on their end."
"An area for improvement I found in Veracode is the connectivity because currently, my company uses a plugin for the dev-ops cloud-based connectivity. A pretty helpful feature would be if Veracode gives a direct code for connecting to the Oracle server directly and authenticating it via a unique server."
"It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions."
"One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications."
"It will be beneficial for developers if Veracode Greenlight includes Python."
"Mitigation review isn't always super easy."
"There is much to be desired of UI and user experience. The UI is very slow. With every click, it just takes a lot of time for the pages to load. We have seen this consistently since getting this solution. The UI and UX are very disjointed."
Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and SonarCloud, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Kiuwan vs. Veracode 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.
