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 helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
"The UL is easy to use compared to that of other tools, and it is highly reliable. The findings provide a lower number of false positives."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"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."
"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."
"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 like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"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."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"Reporting could be improved."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"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."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 21st 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, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Coverity and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Veracode, Snyk 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.
