We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and SonarQube 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 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."
"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."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"SonarQube is good in terms of code review and to report on basic vulnerabilities in your applications."
"It assists during the development with SonarLint and helps the developer to change his approach or rather improve his coding pattern or style. That's one advantage I've seen. Another advantage is that we can customize the rules."
"This solution has helped with the integration and building of our CICD pipeline."
"If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool."
"SonarQube is admin friendly."
"It provides the security that is required from a solution for financial businesses."
"The static code analysis is very good."
"It is an easy tool that you can deploy and configure. After that you can measure the history of your obligation and integrate it with other tools like GitLab or GitHub or Azure DevOps to do quality code analysis."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The product needs to integrate other security tools for security scanning."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit. It's a little expensive."
"SonarQube's detail in the security could be improved. It may be helpful to have additional details, with regards to Oracle PL/SQL. For example, it's neither as built nor as thorough as Java. For now, this is the only additional feature I would like to see."
"Dynamic scanning is missing and there are some issues with security scanning."
"We're in the process of figuring out how to automate the workflow for QA audit controls on it. I think that's perhaps an area that we could use some buffing. We're a Kubernetes shop, so there are some things that aren't direct fits, which we're struggling with on the component Docker side. But nothing major."
"If I configure a project in SonarQube, it generates a token. When we're compiling our code with SonarQube, we have to provide the token for security reasons. If IP-based connectivity is established with the solution, the project should automatically be populated without providing any additional token. It will be easy to provide just the IP address. It currently supports this functionality, but it makes a different branch in the project dashboard. From the configuration and dashboard point of view, it should have some transformations. There can be dashboard integration so that we can configure the dashboard for different purposes."
"Code security scanning could be improved."
"Expression of common vulnerabilities and exposures is not always current."
Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Kiuwan is most compared with Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and SonarCloud, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Kiuwan vs. SonarQube 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.
