Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Kiuwan vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

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

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
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Core Application S...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
14th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.2%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Application Security is 3.2%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
Kiuwan1.2%
Other95.6%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution has a continuous integration process."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"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 find it immensely helpful because it's not just about generating code; it's about ensuring efficiency in the execution."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"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."
"It provides value by offering options to enhance both code quality and the security of the company."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do."
"Fortify is effective in identifying such oversights, making it a really helpful tool despite its problems."
"I use the solution in my company for security code scans."
"Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily."
"The scanning capabilities, particularly for our repositories, have been invaluable."
 

Cons

"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 could improve its scalability abilities."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"The QA developer and security could be improved."
"DIfferent languages, such Spanish, Portuguese, and so on."
"I would like to see better integration with the Visual Studio and Eclipse IDEs."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is cheaper than other tools."
"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"Check with your account manager."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"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."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand licenses are managed by our IT team and the license model is user-based."
"The product's cost depends on the type of license."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,928 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
University
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. T...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. OpenText Core Application Security and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,928 professionals have used our research since 2012.