We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and HCL AppScan based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."It's easy to set up."
"This solution is easier to use than any other tool in the market; there is not even a requirement to learn a lot of scripting in order to use it."
"It's a powerful tool that is open source."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing."
"The ease of use is the solution's most valuable feature. Also, the ability to easily create test cases is also very good. It's easy to just ramp up on the solution."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"When someone in our organization wants to test web applications, they use Apache JMeter since they face no hurdles while using the solution."
"The HCL AppScan turnaround time for Burp Suite or any new feature request is pretty good, and that is why we are sticking with the HCL."
"You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI."
"We are now deploying less defects to production."
"AppScan is stable."
"The static scans are good, and the SaaS as well."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"At times when we overload the application, it gets stuck...After the solution gets stuck due to overloading, we have to restart our computers. In short, the solution keeps crashing."
"The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"The UI could be better."
"The solution's setup could be easier and security could be improved to minimize vulnerabilities."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"In terms of platform support, they need to extend the support for backend platforms and more of the legacy types of platforms."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"Visibility is an issue for us. Our partners do not know we have integrations with some of IBM products."
"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"Improvement can be done as per customer requirements."
"It's a little bit basic when you talk about the Web Services. If AppScan improved its maturity on Web Services testing, that would be good."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while HCL AppScan is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap.
We monitor all Performance Testing 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.