We performed a comparison between GitLab 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 solution is stable."
"The code merging capability is something that we use very frequently."
"This product is always evolving, and they listen to the customers."
"The stability is good."
"The SaaS setup is impressive, and it has DAST solutioning."
"It speeds up our development, it's faster, safer, and more convenient."
"We like that we can have an all-encompassing product and don't have to implement different solutions."
"The most valuable features of GitLab are the review, patch repo, and plans are in YAML."
"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."
"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."
"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've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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."
"It is a little complex to set up the pipelines within the solution."
"I'm new to GitLab, so I would appreciate more documentation about the code and commands."
"Merge conflicts and repository maintenance could improve. If there is someone new to the system they would not know if there is a conflict."
"As a partner, sometimes it's difficult to get support. They have a really complicated procedure for their support."
"The solution could be faster."
"There is a need to improve or adopt AI into the ecosystem like a co-pilot, which Microsoft has done with GitHub."
"Reporting could be improved."
"Their RBAC is role-based access, which is fine but not very good."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"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."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews while Kiuwan is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while Kiuwan is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton, whereas Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand. See our GitLab 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.