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 solution is user-friendly."
"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."
"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."
"I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification"
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"The installation was easy."
"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 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."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"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 are using this solution to increase the quality of our software and to test the vulnerabilities in our tools before the customers find them."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"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."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"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 solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt."
"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."
"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 configuration hasn't been that good."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"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."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
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.