We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One 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 setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"It is a stable product."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."
"The solution has good performance, it is able to compute in 10 to 15 minutes."
"The user interface is modern and nice to use."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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."
"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."
"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 personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement."
"Checkmarx could improve the speed of the scans."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"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."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and Snyk, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap. See our Checkmarx One 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.
