We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and Klocwork 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 has a continuous integration process."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"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."
"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 find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"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."
"On-the-fly analysis and incremental analysis are the best parts of Klocwork. Currently, we are using both of these features very effectively."
"I like not having to dig through false positives. Chasing down a false positive can take anywhere from five minutes for a small easy one, then something that is complicated and goes through a whole bunch of different class cases, and it can take up to 45 minutes to an hour to find out if it is a false positive or not."
"It's integrated into our CI, continuous integration."
"One can increase the number of vendors, so the solution is scalable."
"Technical support is quite good."
"The most valuable feature of Klocwork is finding defects while you're doing the coding. For example, if you have an IDE plug-in of Klocwork on Visual Studio or Eclipse, you can find the faults; similar to using spell check on Word, you can find out defects during the development phase, which means that you don't have to wait till the development is over to find the flaws and address the deficiencies. I also find language support in Klocwork good because it used to support only C, C++, C#, and Java, but now, it also supports Java scripts and Python."
"The reporting helps us understand the trend of our results and whether we improve over time. We can see the history within Klocwork's server architecture and know that we're making things better. It creates a great story for our management. We can demonstrate value and how our software is developing over time."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"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 solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"We'd like to see integration with Agile DevOps and Agile methodologies."
"I would like to see better codes between projects and a more user-friendly desktop in the next release."
"The main problem is that since it only parses the code, the warnings or the problems that are given as a result of the report can sometimes require a lot of effort to analyze."
"This solution could be improved if they offered support of more languages including Ada and Golang. They currently only support seven languages."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"Modern languages, such as Angular and .NET, should be included as a part of Klocwork. They have recently added Kotlin as a part of their project, but we would like to see more languages in Klocwork. That's the reason we are using Coverity as a backup for some of the other languages."
"Under NIST cybersecurity standards, we must address vulnerabilities within a specified time after discovering them. When we try to propagate those updates and fixes through the system, it would be nice if the clients could reconnect to the existing server or have the server dynamically updated in some way. I know that isn't easy, but maybe processes could be enhanced to make that more streamlined from a DevOps perspective."
"The way to define the rules is too complex. The definition/rules for static analysis could be automated according to various SILs, so as to avoid confusion."
Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 20 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while Klocwork is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Their technical team helps us get the most out of the solution, but we've faced some stability problems in our environment". Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, CodeSonar and Checkmarx One. See our Kiuwan vs. Klocwork 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.