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

Kiuwan vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 9, 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
28th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
24th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SonarQube Server (formerly ...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
1st
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
114
Ranking in other categories
Software Development Analytics (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Kiuwan is 1.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is 25.1%, down from 26.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mustufa Bhavnagarwala - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Wang Dayong - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages
The product provides false reports sometimes. It also fails to understand the context of the code. It reports that a line of code has issues without considering its relation with the previous line. The product should improve the report quality. While it asks us to improve the code quality, it would be good if it also suggests how to improve the quality.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The solution offers very good technical support."
"I have found the security and QA in the source code to be most valuable."
"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."
"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."
"I like that it provides a detailed report that lets you know the risk index and the vulnerability."
"Software analytics for a lot of different languages including ABAP."
"The solution's user interface is very user-friendly."
"It provides the security that is required from a solution for financial businesses."
"There is a free version."
"The solution can verify vulnerabilities, code smells, and hotspots. It makes the software more secure and it helps make a junior or novice developer sharper."
"The product is simple."
"Issue Explanations: Documentation with detailed samples. Helps in growing technical knowledge and re-writing logic to conforming solutions."
"It easily ties into our continuous integration pipeline."
"The freemium version of SonarQube Server offers excellent value, especially compared to the high costs of Snyk."
 

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."
"The product's UI has certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
"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."
"It could improve its scalability abilities."
"It would be beneficial to streamline calls and transitions seamlessly for improved functionality."
"The next release should include more flexibility in the reporting."
"Integration of the programming tools could be improved."
"I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution."
"SonarQube could improve by adding automatic creation of tasks after scanning and more support for the Czech language."
"I would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production."
"There is need for support for the additional languages and ease of use in adding new rules for detecting issues."
"There could be better integration with other products."
"A better design of the interface and add some new rules."
"The exporting capabilities could be improved. Currently, exporting is fully dependent on the SonarQube environment."
"In the next release, I would like to have notifications because now, it is a bit difficult. I think that's a feature which we could add there and it would benefit the users as well. For every full request, they should be able to see their bugs or vulnerability directly on the surface."
"We also use Fortify, which is another tool to find security errors. Fortify is a better security tool. It is better than SonarQube in finding errors. Sometimes, SonarQube doesn't find some of the errors that Fortify is able to find. Fortify also has a community, which SonarQube doesn't have. Its installation is a little bit complex. We need to install a database, install the product, and specify the version of the database and the product. They can simplify the installation and make it easier. We use docker for the installation because it is easier to use. Its dashboard needs to be improved. It is not intuitive. It is hard to understand the interface, and it can be improved to provide a better user experience."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Kiuwan is an open-source solution and free to use."
"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."
"The price of Kiuwan is lower than that of other tools on the market."
"Check with your account manager."
"Nothing special. It's a very fair model."
"It follows a subscription model. I think the price is somewhere in the middle."
"I do not know about the pricing as I am using the community edition, which is free. But I compared the pricing with Sigma, and it is higher than SonarQube."
"We use the tool's community edition."
"Get the paid version which allows the customized dashboard and provides technical support."
"We are using the free, unlicensed version."
"The product’s price is lower than Veracode’s price."
"It's a bit expensive for us. The currency rate of the dollar is a problem but it may be fine for other countries."
"We did not purchase a license (required for C++ support), but this option was considered."
"We have a license with 125,000 lines of code. We did not purchase a lot of lines but it is specific to our code environment."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Insurance Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Kiuwan?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kiuwan?
I'm not entirely sure about the price and business aspects, but I assume Checkmarx might be less expensive. I think Checkmarx might offer more affordable options, especially in its smaller business...
What needs improvement with Kiuwan?
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...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which tools that are the best for for Static Code Analysis, I suggest you have a look...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and security. It helps to guide our development teams during code reviews by providing rem...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Sonar
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DHL, BNP Paribas, Zurich, AXA, Ernst & Young, KFC, Santander, Latam, Ferrovial
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Kiuwan vs. SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.