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 improves future security scans."
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"The solution is very fast."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"Once we have our project created with our application pipeline connected to the test scanning, it only takes two minutes. The report explaining what needs to be modified related to security and vulnerabilities in our code is very helpful. We are able to do static and dynamic code scanning."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"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."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"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've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"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."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"Reporting could be improved."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"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."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 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 and Coverity, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and SonarCloud. See our Fortify on Demand vs. Kiuwan report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) 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.