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.
"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 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."
"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."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"What is valuable about Snyk is its simplicity."
"Snyk categorizes the level of vulnerability into high, medium, and low, which helps organizations prioritize which issues to tackle first."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"Snyk has given us really good results because it is fully automated. We don't have to scan projects every time to find vulnerabilities, as it already stores the dependencies that we are using. It monitors 24/7 to find out if there are any issues that have been reported out on the Internet."
"We have integrated it into our software development environment. We have it in a couple different spots. Developers can use it at the point when they are developing. They can test it on their local machine. If the setup that they have is producing alerts or if they need to upgrade or patch, then at the testing phase when a product is being built for automated testing integrates with Snyk at that point and also produces some checks."
"The most valuable features of Snyk are vulnerability scanning and automation. The automation the solution brings around vulnerability scanning is useful."
"The solution has great features and is quite stable."
"Snyk is a good and scalable tool."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"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 solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The tool's initial use is complex."
"They need to improve the Snyk plugins and make it easier to make your optimizations based on your own needs or features."
"We have to integrate with their database, which means we need to send our entire code to them to scan, and they send us the report. A company working in the financial domain usually won't like to share its code or any information outside its network with any third-party provider."
"It would be helpful if we get a recommendation while doing the scan about the necessary things we need to implement after identifying the vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Scalability has some issues because we have a lot of code and its use is mandatory. Therefore, it can be slow at times, especially because there are a lot of projects and reporting. Some UI improvements could help with this."
"Generating reports and visibility through reports are definitely things they can do better."
"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."
Kiuwan is ranked 21st 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, Fortify on Demand, Veracode and SonarCloud, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security. 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.