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."The user interface is good."
"The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"We have the option to test applications with or without credentials."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand have been SAT analysis and application security."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"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 like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is quick when processing and giving an output or generating a report."
"We typically do our bulk uploads of our scans with some automation at the end of the development cycle but the scanning can take a lot of time. If you were doing all of it at regular intervals it would still consume a lot of time. This could procedure could improve."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent. When we are coding the endpoint it will not work, we have to use Windows Agent. This is something they could improve."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"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."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"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."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 8th 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.