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've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"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."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"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 main feature that I have found valuable is the solution's ability to find issues in static analysis. Additionally, there are plenty of useful tools."
"It eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report."
"The most valuable features of Veracode Static Analysis are its ability to work with GitLab and GitHub so that you can do the reviews and force the code."
"It has improved the quality of code being delivered for test and its vulnerability resolutions timeline has improved."
"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."
"The deployment mode is very useful."
"It has given our management a view into issues with all of our product lines. We have three products and all of them were scanned. As a result, the project lead for each product has taken measures to improve things."
"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 configuration hasn't been that good."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"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."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications."
"I would like to see these features: entering comments for internal tracking; entering a priority; reports that show the above."
"Veracode's false positives have room for improvement."
"It would be ideal if it was able to demonstrate higher levels of cybersecurity certifications like becoming FedRAMP compliant or working in those areas."
"I would like Veracode to add more language support."
"The UI could be better. Also, there are some scenarios where there is no security flaw, but the report indicates that there is a security flaw. The report is not perfectly accurate. So, the accuracy of the scanning reports needs improvement."
"I'd like to see an improved component of it work in a DevOps world, where the scanning speed does not impede progress along the AppSec pipeline."
"The negative that I found is that it has a subscription-based model."
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.
