Checkmarx One vs Kiuwan comparison

Checkmarx and Kiuwan are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Checkmarx is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2, while Kiuwan is ranked #29. Checkmarx holds a 9.9% mindshare in AS, compared to Kiuwan’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Checkmarx users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of Kiuwan users who would recommend it.

Checkmarx One

Read 81 Checkmarx One reviews

18,489 Views
13,497 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Kiuwan

Read 23 Kiuwan reviews

2,016 Views
1,633 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Checkmarx One

Kiuwan

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Checkmarx One and Kiuwan are leading contenders in application security testing. Users indicate Checkmarx One holds an advantage in pricing and support satisfaction, while Kiuwan excels in feature offerings, making it appealing for feature-focused users.

Features: Checkmarx One excels in comprehensive security testing, seamless integration capabilities, and delivering detailed code analysis. Kiuwan is noted for providing intricate vulnerability reports, ease of configuration, and facilitating efficient remediation processes.

Room for Improvement: Checkmarx One could enhance performance speed, back-end robustness, and scanning optimization to deliver faster results. Kiuwan's documentation clarity, dashboard usability, and intuitive navigation could be improved for better user experience.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Checkmarx One offers simple deployment options but should focus on quicker support response times. Kiuwan is praised for its smooth deployment and responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Checkmarx One's slightly higher setup costs are justified by its functionality. Kiuwan offers attractive pricing and ROI, due to its efficiency and lower initial costs, appealing to budget-conscious organizations.

To learn more, read our detailed Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 882,032 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

Checkmarx One

Ranking in Application Security Tools

2nd

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

3rd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Vulnerability Management (17th), Container Security (15th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (3rd), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (7th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (2nd)

Kiuwan

Ranking in Application Security Tools

29th

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

26th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 9.9%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.2%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Checkmarx One	9.9%
Kiuwan	1.2%
Other	88.9%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Shahzad Shahzad

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.

Read full review

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

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Checkmarx One has positively impacted my organization, especially in our CI/CD integration, where when we try to build any feature, they are always scanned by Checkmarx before they get released."

"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."

"Checkmarx One has definitely helped us to save time and reduce the need for additional security resources, meaning employees."

"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."

"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."

"From my point of view, it is the best product on the market."

"It has all the features we need."

"The best features Checkmarx One offers, in my opinion, are that it is easy to use, and there is not much deep diving into this."

More Checkmarx One pros

"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."

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

"I personally like the way it breaks down security vulnerabilities with LoC at first glance."

"I find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."

"I've tried many open source applications and the remediation or correction actions that were provided by Kiuwan were very good in comparison."

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

"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."

"I've found the reporting features the most helpful."

More Kiuwan pros

Cons

"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."

"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."

"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."

"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."

"This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization."

"I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved."

"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."

"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."

More Checkmarx One cons

"The development-to-delivery phase."

"Perhaps more languages supported."

"The QA developer and security could be improved."

"It could improve its scalability abilities."

"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."

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

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

More Kiuwan cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Checkmarx is not a cheap scanning tool, but none of the security tools are cheap. Checkmarx is a powerful scanning tool, and it’s essential to have one of these products."

"I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools."

"The average deal size was usually anywhere between $120K to $175K on an annual basis, which could be divided across 12 months."

"If you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities."

"It is an expensive solution."

"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."

"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."

"The solution is costly."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

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

"Check with your account manager."

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

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

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."

"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."

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

882,032 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

11%

University

10%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	32
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	46

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

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.

See all answers

What do you like most about Checkmarx?

Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Checkmarx One

Compared 47% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Kiuwan

Compared 33% of the time

Veracode vs Kiuwan

Compared 9% of the time

Snyk vs Kiuwan

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Kiuwan

Compared 5% of the time

GitHub vs Kiuwan

Compared 5% of the time

More Kiuwan Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

February 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan

January 2026

Download Kiuwan product report

Overview

Checkmarx One is an enterprise cloud-native application security platform focused on providing cross-tool, correlated results to help AppSec and developer teams prioritize where to focus time and resources.

Checkmarx One offers comprehensive application scanning across the SDLC:

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
API security
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Container security
IaC security
Correlation, prioritization, and risk management
Codebashing secure code training
AI security
Tech partnerships extending AppSec into runtime analysis
Developer tool integrations including: CI/CD tools, development frameworks, feedback tools, IDEs, programming languages and SCMs

Checkmarx One provides everything you need to secure application development from the first line of code through deployment and runtime in the cloud. With an ever-evolving set of AppSec engines, correlation and prioritization features, and AI capabilities, Checkmarx One helps consolidate expanding lists of AppSec tools and make better sense of results. Its capabilities are designed to provide an improved developer experience to build trust with development teams and ensure the success of your AppSec program investment.

Checkmarx

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

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

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan

February 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan

Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

882,032 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan report.

See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.