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
33rd
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
28th
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
11th
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 August 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.1%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.3%, down from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.3%
Kiuwan1.1%
Other95.6%
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 personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable in Kiuwan is the speed of scanning. Compared to other SaaS tools I have used, Kiuwan is much quicker in performing scans. I have not yet used it on a large code base, but from what I have experienced, it is efficient and accurate. Additionally, I have used it both manually and in an automated pipeline, and both methods have been effective. The speed of scanning is what makes it valuable to me."
"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 advise using Kiuwan because it's very straightforward and totally easy to understand."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the continuous integration process, which enables us to make the best in terms of security of our solution and not introduce new mistakes, with problems solved step by step."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"What is most useful is how you can have related features upgraded on the tools."
"The features I found most valuable is that it is very configurable and the installation was also very easy."
"The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives."
"Speed and efficiency are great features."
"The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications. It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for."
 

Cons

"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."
"More languages and frameworks would enhance this tool."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"Perhaps more languages supported."
"I would like to see additional languages supported."
"Improvement could be made with the integration of the programming tools."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers."
"An improvement would be the ability to get vulnerabilities flowing automatically into another system."
"They have very good support, but there is always room for improvement."
"Technical support is 6/10. I find the Internet to be more helpful at times than their own tech support in finding answers."
"It could use better integration with the incident management processor."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
"Micro Focus support is slow, and they should improve that."
"I would say OpenText Core Application Security is not very user-friendly in terms of price; it is quite high."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
"The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

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 Enterprise46
 

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: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.