No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmarx One vs Kiuwan comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

Checkmarx One
Ranking in Application Security Tools
2nd
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (12th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (3rd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (10th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)
Kiuwan
Ranking in Application Security Tools
34th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
29th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 7.3%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Checkmarx One7.3%
Kiuwan1.1%
Other91.6%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Solution Architect | L3+ Systems & Cloud Engineer | SRE Specialist at Canada Cloud Solution
Enable secure development workflows while identifying opportunities for faster scans and improved AI guidance
Checkmarx One is a very strong platform, but there are several areas where it can improve to support modern DevSecOps workflows even better. For example, better real-time developer guidance is needed. The IDE plugin should offer richer AI-powered auto-fixes similar to SNYK Code or GitHub Copilot Security, as current guidance is good but not deeply contextual for large-scale enterprise codebases. This matters because it reduces developer friction and accelerates shift-left adoption. More transparency control over the correlation engines is another need. The correlation engine is powerful but not fully transparent. Users want to understand why vulnerabilities were correlated or de-prioritized, which helps AppSec teams trust the prioritization logic. Faster SAST scan and more language coverage is needed since SAST scan can still be slow for very large mono-repos and there is limited deep support for new language frameworks like Rust and Go, along with advanced coverage for serverless-specific frameworks. This matters because large organizations want sub-minute scans in CI/CD as cloud-native ecosystems evolve fast. A strong API security module is another area for enhancement. API security scanning could be improved with active testing, API discovery, full Swagger, OpenAPI, drift detection, and schema-based fuzzing. This is important as API attacks are one of the biggest AppSec risks in 2025. Checkmarx One is strong, but I see a few areas for improvement including faster SAST scanning for large mono-repos, deeper language framework support, more transparent correlation logic, and stronger API security that includes discovery and runtime context. The IDE plugin could offer more AI-assisted fixes, and the SBOM lifecycle tracking can evolve further. Enhancing integration with SIEM and SOAR would also make enterprise adoption smoother, and these improvements would help developers and AppSec teams move faster with more accuracy.
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Providing the scanning ability that shows the errors at the source code level is critical to have effective development of any critical application."
"Checkmarx One has positively impacted the organization, and since replacing the previous tool, SAST and SCA scans are conducted in a couple of minutes instead of hours or days, saving time and increasing speed to market by reducing the timeline from three or four days to one day only."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports."
"We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis."
"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"In summary, this is a good application that you can use to scan every code language."
"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."
"I advise using Kiuwan because it's very straightforward and totally easy to understand."
"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."
"We have been using this solution for one and a half years."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"We have had an improvement of 20% in our time to market and it significantly improved the quality of our code."
"This solution helps us to catch issues early on, and find problems that we never knew we had."
"Kiuwan has enabled us to give our customers peace of mind through early identification of code vulnerabilities and remediation before delivery to the customer."
 

Cons

"Scanning speed optimization is an area where improvements can be made, and we can reduce false positives."
"Checkmarx One is often down when the cloud provider experiences issues. A more fail-tolerant solution needs to be created."
"Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"From an administrative standpoint, I would rate Checkmarx with a five out of ten."
"I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service."
"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."
"The pricing and licensing models are poor."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The configuration hasn't been that good."
"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 would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"Improvement could be made with the integration of the programming tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."
"Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products."
"It is the right price for quality delivery."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."
"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."
"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."
"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"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."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"Check with your account manager."
"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Construction Company
12%
University
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise46
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

What alternatives are there for Fortify WebInspect and Fortify SCA?
I would like to recommend Checkmarx. With Checkmarx, you are able to have an all in one solution for SAST and SCA as well. Veracode is only a cloud solution. Hope this helps.
What is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Checkmarx?
Checkmarx One is a premium solution, so budget accordingly. Make sure you understand how licensing scales with additional applications and users. I advise negotiating multi-year contracts or bundle...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

YIT, Salesforce, Coca-Cola, SAP, U.S. Army, Liveperson, Playtech Case Study: Liveperson Implements Innovative Secure SDLC
DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.