We performed a comparison between Snyk and Kiuwan based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Snyk comes out ahead of Kiuwan. Kiuwan has difficulties with the initial setup and installation, which may deter some potential users. Also, there is no phone or chat support available.
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"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 find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"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."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"The most valuable features of Snyk are vulnerability scanning and automation. The automation the solution brings around vulnerability scanning is useful."
"The advantage of Snyk is that Snyk automatically creates a pull request for all the findings that match or are classified according to the policy that we create. So, once we review the PR within Snyk and we approve the PR, Snyk auto-fixes the issue, which is quite interesting and which isn't there in any other product out there. So, Snyk is a step ahead in this particular area."
"The most effective feature in securing project dependencies stems from its ability to highlight security vulnerabilities."
"The product's most valuable features are an open-source platform, remote functionality, and good pricing."
"Our overall security has improved. We are running fewer severities and vulnerabilities in our packages. We fixed a lot of the vulnerabilities that we didn't know were there."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution's vulnerability database, in terms of comprehensiveness and accuracy, is very high-level. As far as I know, it's the best among their competitors."
"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 product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"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."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The tool needs improvement in license compliance. I would like to see the integration of better policy management in the product's future release. When it comes to the organization that I work for, there are a lot of business units since we are a group of companies. Each of these companies has its specific requirements and its own appetite for risk. This should be able to reflect in flexible policies. We need to be able to configure policies that can be adjusted later or overridden by the business unit that is using the product."
"The solution could improve the reports. They have been working on improving the reports but more work could be done."
"One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs."
"A feature we would like to see is the ability to archive and store historical data, without actually deleting it. It's a problem because it throws my numbers off. When I'm looking at the dashboard's current vulnerabilities, it's not accurate."
"Could include other types of security scanning and statistical analysis"
"The tool should provide more flexibility and guidance to help us fix the top vulnerabilities before we go into production."
"We were using Microsoft Docker images. It was reporting some vulnerabilities, but we were not able to figure out the fix for them. It was reporting some vulnerabilities in the Docker images given by Microsoft, which were out of our control. That was the only limitation. Otherwise, it was good."
"It can be improved from the reporting perspective and scanning perspective. They can also improve it on the UI front."
Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while Snyk 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Kiuwan vs. Snyk report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.