We performed a comparison between Fortify on Demand 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."It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"It improves future security scans."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"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."
"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 personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 57 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and OWASP Zap. See our Fortify on Demand 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.
