We performed a comparison between Kiuwan and Veracode 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."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."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"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 solution offers very good technical support."
"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."
"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."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"It's helping us with security and making sure that we develop faster. It's able to scan every vulnerability. It's very powerful software that one can use to make sure that you have a very good, secure platform."
"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"The innovative features offered by Veracode are excellent."
"Vulnerability Management and mitigation recommendations help with resolution of issues found, prior to deployment to production."
"Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence."
"I liked that I could easily find out where my errors were. Instead of going through the whole code and the scripts, it showed me where the errors were and gave me an idea of how to fix them."
"We have found the static analysis to be useful in Veracode Static Analysis. However, we are in the process of testing."
"Veracode does not require any maintenance."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"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 QA developer and security could be improved."
"The solution seems to give us a lot of false positives. This could be improved quite a bit."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"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."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"The only notable problem we have had is that when new versions of Swift have come out, we have found Veracode tends to be a bit behind in updates to support the new language changes."
"The only areas that I'm concerned with are some of the newer code libraries, things that we're starting to see people dabble with. They move quickly enough to get them into the Analysis Engine, so I wouldn't even say it is a complaint. It is probably the only thing I worry about: Occasionally hitting something that is built in some other obscure development model, where we either can't scan it or can't scan it very well."
"I would like to see more AI features. It's a current subject because with ChatGPT and other solutions being developed all the time, IT attacks will increase... To defend against those it's very important that the good guys use AI in ways that are good instead of bad."
"I would like to see improvement on the analytics side, and in integrations with different tools. Also, the dynamic scanning takes time."
"I would like to see them provide more content in the developer training section. This field is really changing each day and there are flaws that are detected each day. Some sort of regular updates to the learning would help."
"They could improve how they fix vulnerabilities. They could have more support in place to help the developers."
"I'd like to see more development tools and platforms integrated together with Veracode to amplify the solution's effectiveness."
Kiuwan is ranked 21st in Application Security Tools with 23 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 193 reviews. Kiuwan is rated 8.6, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kiuwan writes "Though a stable tool, the UI needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Kiuwan is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and SonarCloud, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap. See our Kiuwan vs. Veracode 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.
