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

Kiuwan vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 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
Ranking in Application Security Tools
23rd
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
25th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
14th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
13th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.1%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 4.0%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security4.0%
Kiuwan1.1%
Other94.9%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Jonathan Steyn - PeerSpot reviewer
Source code analyzer, FPR file generation, reduction of false positives and generates compliance reports, for in-depth analysis
Not challenges with the product itself. The product is very reliable. It does have a steep learning curve. But, again, one thing that Fortify or OpenText does very well is training. There are a lot of free resources and training in the community forums, free training as well as commercial training where users can train on how to use the back-end systems and the scanning engines and how to use command-line arguments because some of the procedures or some of the tools do require a bit of a learning curve. That's the only challenge I've really seen for customers because you have to learn how to use the tool effectively. But Fortify has, in fact, improved its user interface and the way users engage the dashboards and the interfaces. It is intuitive. It's easy to understand. But in some regards, the cybersecurity specialist or AppSec would need a bit of training to engage the user interface and to understand how it functions. But from the point of the reliability index and how powerful the tool is, there's no challenge there. But it's just from a learning perspective; users might need a bit more skill to use the tool. The user interface isn't that tedious. It's not that difficult to understand. When I initially learned how to use the interfaces, I was able to master it within a week and was able to use it quite effectively. So training is required. All skills are needed to learn how to use the tool. I would like to see more enhancements in the dashboards. Dashboards are available. They do need some configuration and settings. But I would like to see more business intelligence capabilities within the tool. It's not particularly a cybersecurity function, but, for instance, business impact analysis or other features where you can actually use business intelligence capabilities within your security tool. That would be remarkable because not only do you have a cybersecurity tool, but you also have a tool that can give you business impact analysis and some other measurements. A bit more intelligence in terms of that from a cybersecurity perspective would be remarkable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"​We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"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."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"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."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"It improves future security scans."
"It is a very easy tool for developers to use in parallel while they're doing the coding. It does auto scanning as we are progressing with the CI/CD pipeline. It has got very simple and efficient API support."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product)."
 

Cons

"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"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."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"We want a user-based control and role-based access for developers. We want to give limited access to developers so that it only pertains to the code that they write and scanning of the codes for any vulnerabilities as they're progressing with writing the code. As of now, the interface to give restricted access to the developers is not the best. It gives them more access than what is basically required, but we don't want over-provisioning and over-access."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Check with your account manager."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"It is cost-effective."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"The solution is a little expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
University
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise43
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Kiuwan?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kiuwan?
I'm not entirely sure about the price and business aspects, but I assume Checkmarx might be less expensive. I think Checkmarx might offer more affordable options, especially in its smaller business...
What needs improvement with Kiuwan?
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...
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
There are frequent complaints about false positives from Fortify. One day it may pass a scan with no issues, and the next day, without any code changes, it will report vulnerabilities such as passw...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.