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

Kiuwan vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
31st
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
27th
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
12th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.2%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.1%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.1%
Kiuwan1.2%
Other95.7%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"For the moment, this is a solution that I could recommend."
"We switched because Kiuwan covers the entire SDLC; provides direct information to act upon, for the developer, architects, QA, CIO and CISO, in a few seconds; automatically, fully integrated in any CI/CD setup."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"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."
"Customer service is excellent."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"This solution helps us to catch issues early on, and find problems that we never knew we had."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"The static code analyzer provides views from a security perspective and it is easy to use compared to others."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
"It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades."
"Provides good depth of scanning and we get good results."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."
 

Cons

"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"The rate of false positives, where it reports issues that are not really issues, can be improved."
"For mobile development, we are not too experienced, and it is not the perfect tool because the integration with certain products is very manual."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"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."
"The biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand cannot be run from a Linux Agent."
"They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"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."
"We have some stability issues, but they are minimal."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"Check with your account manager."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"The solution is a little expensive."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"I believe the rental license is not too expensive, but it provides a lot of information about the vulnerabilities."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
7%
 

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 Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise45
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...
 

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: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.