We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan 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."Technical support is helpful."
"It was easy to set up."
"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"IBM AppScan has made our work easy, as we can do four to five scans of websites at a time, which saves time when it comes to vulnerability."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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 like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"They have to improve support."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"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."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our HCL AppScan 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.
