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 8.3, while Kiuwan is ranked #32. Checkmarx holds a 8.2% 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

24,992 Views
14,995 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Kiuwan

Read 23 Kiuwan reviews

3,387 Views
2,710 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: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 904,054 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)

2nd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Vulnerability Management (15th), Container Security (14th), Static Code Analysis (2nd), API Security (4th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (2nd), DevSecOps (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (11th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd), AI Security (3rd)

Kiuwan

Ranking in Application Security Tools

32nd

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

28th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Checkmarx One is 8.2%, down from 9.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.2%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Checkmarx One	8.2%
Kiuwan	1.2%
Other	90.6%

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

"The license is fairly costly but worth the investment."

"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use, as it's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."

"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."

"The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal."

"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."

"It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc)."

"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."

"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."

More Checkmarx One pros

"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."

"The technical support is very good, and we have received valid answers to our questions."

"Lifecycle features, because they permit us to show non-technical people the risk and costs hidden into the code due to bad programming practices."

"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."

"For the moment, this is a solution that I could recommend."

"The solution will measure your development team, give a KPI for the CISO, reduce the time it takes to find and correct coding errors, and more."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the continuous integration process, which enables us to make the best in terms of security of our solution and not introduce new mistakes, with problems solved step by step."

More Kiuwan pros

Cons

"Checkmarx One can be improved by reducing noise and improving false positive filtering."

"It is an expensive solution."

"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."

"There are some downtimes when Checkmarx One is being upgraded to the latest version or some improvement is there."

"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."

"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."

"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."

More Checkmarx One cons

"More languages and frameworks would enhance this tool."

"The development-to-delivery phase."

"Perhaps more languages supported."

"The QA developer and security could be improved."

"Improvement could be made with the integration of the programming tools."

"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."

"The rate of false positives, where it reports issues that are not really issues, can be improved."

"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."

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."

"The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security."

"The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much."

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

"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."

"We have purchased an annual license to use this solution. The price is reasonable."

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

"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."

More Checkmarx One pricing and cost advice

"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."

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

"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."

"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."

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

904,054 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Construction Company

12%

University

11%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

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 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...

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 29% of the time

Veracode vs Checkmarx One

Compared 3% of the time

Checkmarx SAST vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

Fortify Software Security Center vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Checkmarx One

Compared 2% of the time

More Checkmarx One Competitors

SonarQube vs Kiuwan

Compared 19% of the time

Veracode vs Kiuwan

Compared 13% of the time

GitHub vs Kiuwan

Compared 7% of the time

Snyk vs Kiuwan

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Kiuwan

Compared 4% of the time

More Kiuwan Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Checkmarx One

July 2026

Download Checkmarx One product report

Buyer's Guide

Kiuwan

July 2026

Download Kiuwan product report

Overview

Checkmarx One delivers robust security through seamless integration with SCM and CI/CD tools, ensuring reliable SAST and SCA. Primarily used by organizations for vulnerability detection, it supports cloud and on-premises deployment to enhance secure coding practices.

Checkmarx One provides organizations with comprehensive tools for secure software development, integrating effectively with CI/CD pipelines to scan thousands of applications. Its capabilities extend to identifying vulnerabilities in both code bases and third-party software. Enhancing workflow by supporting SCM solutions, it assists in maintaining secure coding standards and compliance. While excelling in various areas, it requires improvements in scan speed, reduction of false positives, and broader platform integration, particularly for COBOL and Swift. Its pricing model is noted as high, and demand exists for better tutorials and documentation.

What are the key features of Checkmarx One?

Comprehensive Integration: Seamlessly connects with SCM, CI/CD tools to streamline security workflows.
Accurate SAST and SCA: Precisely identifies vulnerabilities down to the exact line of code.
Custom Rules Configuration: Allows tailored security measures to match specific needs.
Quick Scanning: Provides fast analysis to speed up the development process.
Automated Code Remediation: Helps in efficiently fixing code vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect in reviews?

Improved Security: Enhances code safety, reducing vulnerabilities efficiently.
Effective False Positivity Management: Optimizes time spent on genuine issues.
Enhanced Development Processes: Integrates smoothly to boost secure coding initiatives.
Comprehensive Language Support: Facilitates scanning in multiple programming languages, accommodating diverse needs.

Industries implement Checkmarx One for secure coding compliance and vulnerability management across varying environments, choosing between cloud and on-premises deployment based on requirements. Its extensive language support and integration with DevSecOps practices make it a popular choice for organizations aiming to enhance software security.

Checkmarx

Kiuwan offers comprehensive security and vulnerability testing capabilities, focusing on code analysis, fast scanning, and detailed risk assessments. Supporting many technologies, it integrates well into development workflows to ensure code compliance and enhance code quality.

Known for its application portfolio governance, Kiuwan provides fast scanning and reporting features, alongside an intuitive interface. It supports languages from COBOL to JavaScript, offering modular capabilities and security integration for continuous deployment. Developers can perform efficient local or cloud-based scans, benefiting from action plans for better code correction. Integration with tools like Jenkins facilitates quick processing and detailed risk assessments, while challenges remain in language support expansion and smoother integration with Azure DevOps and popular IDEs. Enhanced frameworks and mobile development testing would amplify its utility, with users seeking improved navigation, report downloading, and technical support.

What are the most important features of Kiuwan?

Fast Scanning: Provides quick scans for immediate insights.
Reporting: Robust features for generating detailed reports.
Intuitive UI: Easy-to-navigate interface.
Technology Coverage: Supports a range of languages from COBOL to JS.
Tool Integration: Seamlessly integrates with Jenkins for CI/CD processes.
Modularity: Allows specific models for targeted analysis.

What benefits or ROI should users look for in Kiuwan reviews?

Enhanced Code Security: Identifies vulnerabilities swiftly and efficiently.
Continuous Integration: Facilitates ongoing security assessments.
Improved Code Compliance: Helps maintain adherence to coding standards.
Actionable Insights: Provides risk assessments with actionable recommendations.

In industries focused on software development, Kiuwan is integral for security and vulnerability assessments. It's embedded into workflows to analyze, detect and correct vulnerabilities, addressing threats like SQL injection and adhering to OWASP Top 10. The tool supports secure coding practices and performance evaluation, aiding organizations in maintaining rigorous security standards.

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

June 2026

Free Report: Checkmarx One vs. Kiuwan

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

904,054 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.