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."Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases."
"The user interface is good."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"The solution is user-friendly. One feature I find very effective is the tool's automatic scanning capability. It scans replicas of the code developers write and automatically detects any vulnerabilities. The integration with CI/CD tools is also useful for plugins."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"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."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"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."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"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 have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"There are lots of limitations with code technology. It cannot scan .net properly either."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"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 configuration hasn't been that good."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"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 product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th 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.