We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One, Fortify Application Defender, and Kiuwan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools."It is a stable product."
"Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"The UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"The solution helped us to improve the code quality of our organization."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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."
"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."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"Checkmarx could improve by reducing the price."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode."
"The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"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."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"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."
