Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Kiuwan Insights vs OpenText Static Application Security Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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

Kiuwan Insights
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
24th
Average Rating
4.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Static Application...
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Static Code Analysis category, the mindshare of Kiuwan Insights is 1.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Static Application Security Testing is 7.4%, down from 10.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Code Analysis Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Static Application Security Testing7.4%
Kiuwan Insights1.2%
Other91.4%
Static Code Analysis
 

Featured Reviews

FE
Head of Development and Consulting at Logalty
Protects problematic libraries; sorely lacking in customer services
Kiuwan lacks decent support, it's very bad. A couple of years ago an American company bought Kiuwan and support became non-existent. It's a big part of why we're looking to move to another product. We have questions regarding false positives and nobody responds to our tickets. They don't have any answers. If you're looking for a cheaper solution and don't require support, it might be okay, but a large end company that has a lot of questions about how the developers are programming will have trouble.
DK
Lead Information Security Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Focuses on detailed scans to find critical vulnerabilities while ensuring minimal false positives
I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less than the current latest version. It would be really helpful to include trending vulnerabilities and how to manage them. While it includes all the OWASP top factors, AI has come into the picture, so those updates should also be considered. I haven't thought much about additional features for improvement since I am using it daily. Most of our work revolves around scanning and providing the results, which sometimes feels like a crunch. However, I believe rule pack updates should be implemented. It feels easy to upgrade to the latest version as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Can help in reducing the number of false positives."
"I have found the interface to be perfect."
"We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part."
"The integration Subset core integration, using Jenkins is one of the good features."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code. It effectively identifies security vulnerabilities by analyzing the code and offering insights on improving it."
"Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines."
"I like Fortify Software Security Center or Fortify SSC. This tool is installed on each developer's machine, but Fortify Software Security Center combines everything. We can meet there as security professionals and developers. The developers scan their code and publish the results there. We can then look at them from a security perspective and see whether they fixed the issues. We can agree on whether something is a false positive and make decisions."
"Its flexibility is most valuable. It is such a flexible tool. It can be implemented in a number of ways. It can do anything you want it to do. It can be fully automated within a DevOps pipeline. It can also be used in an ad hoc, special test case scenario and anywhere in between."
"Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like password credentials and access keys embedded in the code."
"We've found the documentation to be very good."
 

Cons

"The solution is great, but improvement is needed in the number of lines of code allowed, that is the capacity. Pricing can be improved as well."
"The solution has issues detecting intrusive methods."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support. The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff. I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer has a bit of a learning curve, and I don't find it particularly helpful in narrowing down the vulnerabilities we should prioritize."
"The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit."
"The deployment of Fortify Static Code Analyzer needs to be simplified."
"Streamlining the upgrade process and enhancing compatibility would make it easier for us to keep our security tools up-to-date."
"The generation of false positives should be reduced."
"It comes with a hefty licensing fee."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing can be improved as well."
"The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements."
"The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range."
"The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced."
"I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive."
"There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost. I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use."
"Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive."
"It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform."
"From our standpoint, we are significantly better off with Fortify due to the favorable pricing we secured five years ago."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Code Analysis solutions are best for your needs.
880,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like pa...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been good. We have the scan machines, and we are planning to request more from Micro Focus now. We have calls every month or every oth...
What needs improvement with Fortify Static Code Analyzer?
I think Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be improved by updating the number of rule packs according to the latest vulnerabilities we find each year. We have updated to a version that is one less ...
 

Also Known As

Insights SCA
Fortify Static Code Analysis SAST
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan Insights vs. OpenText Static Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
880,745 professionals have used our research since 2012.