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 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
Ranking in Application Security Tools
28th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
26th
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
13th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
12th
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 March 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 3.2%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
Kiuwan1.2%
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

"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."
"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."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the detailed reporting and the ability to set up deep scanning of the software, both of which are in the same place."
"HP Fortify on Demand provides an independent review of third-party applications, allowing organizations to test software before purchasing, and also allowing software vendors to demonstrate the security of their software."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"The biggest advantage of this tool, Fortify on Demand, is that it is very scalable; it provides all the features just in time, and you do not need to have massive deployment or a lot of compute capabilities to use the product—that's the beauty of it."
"I do not remember any issues with stability."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"The user interface is good."
 

Cons

"The development-to-delivery phase."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"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."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The integration process could be improved. It'll also help if it could generate reports automatically. But I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the reports. This is because, in our last project, we still found some key issues that weren't captured by the Kiuwan report."
"I find that while it does find a lot of legitimate threats, it tends to have a lot of false positives, and there are more false positives than I would like to see."
"Not fully integrated with CIT processes."
"I would like to see improvement in CI integration and integration with GitLab or Jenkins. It needs to be more simple."
"It would be useful if they could integrate secure design reviews, security user stories in Fortify on Demand Portal, and also look for possible options to get just one view of risks for given services (Covering Application, Infrastructure, Pen. Test, etc.)."
"It does scanning for all virtual machines and other things, but it doesn't do the scanning for containers. It currently lacks the ability to do the scanning on containers. We're asking their product management team to expand this capability to containers."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand can improve by having more graphs. For example, to show the improvement of the level of security."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"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."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Performing Arts
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
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 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?
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. T...
 

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: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.