We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and SonarQube 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."We use Kiuwan to locate the source of application vulnerabilities."
"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."
"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."
"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've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"The product itself has a friendly UI."
"The most valuable features are the analysis and detection of issues within the application code."
"I am only interested in the security features in SonarQube. There are plenty of features other features, such as test coverage, code anomalies, and pointer access are handled by the business logic teams. They get the reports and they have to fix them in JIRA or Bugzilla."
"SonarQube is one of the more popular solutions because it supports 29 languages."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"This solution has the capability to analyze source code in almost all the languages in the market."
"SonarQube is good for checking and maintaining code quality."
"The code coverage feature is very good."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"The development-to-delivery phase."
"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."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"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 solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"I would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production."
"If there was an official Docker image of SonarQube that could easily integrate into the pipeline would help the user to plug in and plug out and use it directly without any custom configuration. I am not sure if this is being offered already in an update but it would be very helpful."
"There is need for support for the additional languages and ease of use in adding new rules for detecting issues."
"The implementation of the solution is straightforward. However, we did have some initial initialization issues at the of the projects. I don't think it was SonarQube's fault. It was the way it was implemented in our organization because it's mainly integrated with many software, such as Jira, Confluence, and Butler."
"Monitoring is a feature that can be improved in the next version."
"The solution could improve by providing more advanced technologies."
"I find it is light on the security side."
"We had some issues scanning the master branch but when we upgraded to version 7.9 we noticed it does scan the master branch but we had to do a workaround for it to happen. This process could be improved in a future release."
Kiuwan is ranked 21st in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 108 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Kiuwan is most compared with Checkmarx One, Veracode, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and SonarCloud, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Snyk. See our Kiuwan vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
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.
