We performed a comparison between CAST Highlight and Kiuwan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of CAST Highlight are automation and speed."
"The most valuable features of the CAST Highlight are the interface and there are three notations that are very simple to understand and communicate with."
"CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"It offers good performance."
"The way it tells you which codebase is more ready for the cloud and which codebase is less ready is very valuable. It works seamlessly with most languages."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"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."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"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."
"CAST Highlight could improve to allow us to comment and do a deep analysis by ourselves."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
"The ease of configuration and customization could be improved in CAST Highlight."
"Its price should be better. It is a pretty costly tool. They have two products: CAST Highlight and CAST AIP. I would expect CAST Highlight to have the Help dashboard and the Engineering dashboard. These dashboards are currently a part of CAST AIP, and if these are made available in CAST Highlight, customers won't have to use two different products all the time."
"There's a bit of a learning curve at the outset."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"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."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"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."
CAST Highlight is ranked 13th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 5 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. CAST Highlight is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of CAST Highlight writes "Easy to set up with optimized and automated insights". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". CAST Highlight is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Black Duck and Checkmarx One, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our CAST Highlight vs. Kiuwan report.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.