We performed a comparison between CodeSonar 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 most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."
"It has been able to scale."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"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."
"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."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"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 like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"It was expensive."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
CodeSonar is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 7 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 21st in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. CodeSonar is rated 8.2, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of CodeSonar writes "Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". CodeSonar is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, Polyspace Code Prover and Semgrep Code, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Snyk and Fortify on Demand. See our CodeSonar vs. Kiuwan 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.
