We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and SonarQube 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 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."
"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."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"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 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."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"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."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"It is an easy tool that you can deploy and configure. After that you can measure the history of your obligation and integrate it with other tools like GitLab or GitHub or Azure DevOps to do quality code analysis."
"The features of SonarQube that I find most valuable for identifying code smells are its comprehensive code analysis capabilities, which cover various aspects of code sustainability."
"Strong code evaluation for budget-minded clients."
"We have the software metrics that SonarQube gives us, which is something we did not have before. This helps us work towards aiming coding standards to empower us to move in the direction of better code quality. SonarQube provides targets and metrics for that."
"The most valuable feature of SonarQube I have found to be the configuration that has allowed us to can make adjusts to the demands of the code review. It gives a specified classification regarding the skill, prioritization, and it is easy for me to review and make my code."
"The SonarQube dashboard looks great."
"The solution can verify vulnerabilities, code smells, and hotspots. It makes the software more secure and it helps make a junior or novice developer sharper."
"The product itself has a friendly UI."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"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 solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"The product's user documentation can be vastly improved."
"You may need to purchase add-ons to get the useability you desire."
"The pricing could be reduced a bit. It's a little expensive."
"We also use Fortify, which is another tool to find security errors. Fortify is a better security tool. It is better than SonarQube in finding errors. Sometimes, SonarQube doesn't find some of the errors that Fortify is able to find. Fortify also has a community, which SonarQube doesn't have. Its installation is a little bit complex. We need to install a database, install the product, and specify the version of the database and the product. They can simplify the installation and make it easier. We use docker for the installation because it is easier to use. Its dashboard needs to be improved. It is not intuitive. It is hard to understand the interface, and it can be improved to provide a better user experience."
"I am not very pleased with the technical debt computation."
"There could be better integration with other products."
"The time it took for me to do the whole process was approximately two hours because I had to download, read the documentation, and do the configurations."
"The reporting is good, but I am not able to download a specific report as a PDF, so downloading reports is something that should be looked at."
Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Kiuwan is most compared with Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and SonarCloud, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Kiuwan vs. SonarQube 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.
