Kiuwan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing comparison

The compared Kiuwan and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. Kiuwan is ranked #29 in AS , and holds a 1.2% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #3 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 11.0% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of Kiuwan users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Kiuwan

Read 23 Kiuwan reviews

2,016 Views
1,633 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

3,095 Views
1,145 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Kiuwan

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Kiuwan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Report (Updated: May 2022).

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 peers since 2012

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

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (29th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (26th)

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd), DevSecOps (9th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. Kiuwan is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.2%, up 1.0% compared to last year.
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), holds 11.0% mindshare, up 9.5% since last year.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Kiuwan	1.2%
SonarQube	16.9%
Checkmarx One	9.9%
Other	72.0%

Application Security Tools

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.0%
Veracode	18.2%
Checkmarx One	17.0%
Other	53.8%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Featured Reviews

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala

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.

Read full review

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

Read full review

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."

"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."

"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 use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."

"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."

"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."

"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."

"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."

More Kiuwan pros

"The transaction recorder within WebInspect is easy to use, which is valuable for our team."

"I'm sorry, but there is no review content provided to extract a quote from."

"Fortify WebInspect is a scalable solution, it is good for a lot of applications."

"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."

"Guided Scan option allows us to easily scan and share reports."

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

"The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products."

"Technical support has been good."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

Cons

"Perhaps more languages supported."

"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."

"The development-to-delivery phase."

"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."

"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."

"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."

"It could improve its scalability abilities."

"The configuration hasn't been that good."

More Kiuwan cons

"The solution needs better integration with Microsoft's Azure Cloud or an extension of Azure DevOps. In fact, it should better integrate with any cloud provider. Right now, it's quite difficult to integrate with that solution, from the cloud perspective."

"It took us between eight and ten hours to scan an entire site, which is somewhat slow and something that I think can be improved."

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."

"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."

"The initial setup was complex."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."

"Check with your account manager."

"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."

"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."

"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"The price is okay."

"This solution is very expensive."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

11%

University

10%

Financial Services Firm

Consumer Goods Company

Government

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	16
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Kiuwan

Compared 32% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Kiuwan

Compared 10% of the time

Veracode vs Kiuwan

Compared 8% of the time

Snyk vs Kiuwan

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Kiuwan

Compared 5% of the time

More Kiuwan Competitors

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 22% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

OWASP Zap vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan

January 2026

Download Kiuwan product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

January 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

Overview

Software analytics technology with a breadth of third party integrations that takes into account the wealth of applications your teams are currently using.

We facilitate and encourage work between unlocalized teams. We understand the complexity of working on multi technology environments, constantly striving to increase the number of programming languages and technologies we support.

Kiuwan

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial

Aaron's

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

May 2022

Free Report: Kiuwan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2022.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Kiuwan vs. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report.

We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.