No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) vs Kiuwan comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Continuous Dynamic (formerl...
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (9th)
Kiuwan
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (28th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 4.8%, up 2.3% compared to last year.
Kiuwan, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.2% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic)4.8%
Veracode17.2%
Checkmarx One16.4%
Other61.6%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Kiuwan1.2%
SonarQube16.3%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other72.6%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user245412 - PeerSpot reviewer
Executive Vice President, Operations at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
The product and customer service is extremely efficient but I would like to see more research and code examples.
* The continuous online scanning capabilities and reporting features. * The SaaS product features accessible from a browser make managing our online systems easy. * The ability to review security items quickly along with being able to retest vulnerabilities on our schedule make the Sentinel product an invaluable tool for our company’s product security requirements.
Mustufa Bhavnagarwala - PeerSpot reviewer
CyberRisk Solution Advisor at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement
Kiuwan can improve its UI a little more. The user experience can be made better. Kiuwan offers a user interface that is similar to the one offered by Windows 7 or Windows 98, which I saw when I ran the tool and tried to scan the repository to find the security issues. The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The SaaS product features accessible from a browser make managing our online systems easy."
"Customer service is excellent."
"We have had an improvement of 20% in our time to market and it significantly improved the quality of our code."
"The solution will measure your development team, give a KPI for the CISO, reduce the time it takes to find and correct coding errors, and more."
"We have been using this solution for one and a half years."
"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."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"From the tool itself, the developer can run an analysis with the same quality, and with this tool, every developer has the opportunity to do an unlimited analysis."
 

Cons

"I would like to see more research and code examples for the vulnerabilities identified to better assist us with our remediation process."
"We faced a lot of problems with the initial setup and support gave us difficulties around the installation."
"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."
"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 development-to-delivery phase."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Check with your account manager."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"I recommend contacting a sales person who will create the best plan payment plan for you, as we did."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
University
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Performing Arts
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
 

Also Known As

Sentinel Dynamic, WhiteHat Security Application Security Testing, Synopsys WhiteHat Dynamic
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, OpenText and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: March 2026.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.