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

HCL AppScan vs PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

HCL AppScan
Ranking in Application Security Tools
14th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
10th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st)
PortSwigger Burp Suite Prof...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
8th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 2.6%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is 2.0%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rishi Anupam - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable and scalable scanning solution with good reporting feature
The solution is used for the vulnerabilities scan on the network side The reporting part is the most valuable feature. The penetration testing feature should be included. I have been using the solution for four years. It is a stable solution. I rate it seven out of ten. It is a scalable…
Anuradha.Kapoor Kapoor - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers efficient scanning of entire websites but presence of false positive bugs, leading to time-consuming efforts in distinguishing real bugs from false alarms
We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"The product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"We use it as a security testing application."
"It provides a better integration for our ecosystem."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"The UI was very intuitive."
"In my area of expertise, I feel like it has almost everything I could possibly require at this moment."
"It helps in API testing, where manual intervention was previously necessary for each payload."
"The technical support from PortSwigger is excellent, managing response time and quality efficiently without any issues."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite does not hamper the node of the server, and it does not shut down the server if it is running."
"It offers flexibility, macros, and features to reduce the effort required for authenticated sessions."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is one of the best user-friendly solutions for getting the proxy set up."
"It is useful for scanning and tracing activities."
"PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional has an intercept tab that helps us to scan our APIs, set the response, and request errors."
 

Cons

"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
"I would love to see more containers. Many of the tools are great, they require an amount of configuration, setup and infrastructure. If most the applications were in a container, I think everything would be a little bit faster, because all our clients are now using containers."
"They could add a software component analysis tool."
"AppScan needs to improve its handling of false positives."
"A desktop version should be added."
"They could incorporate AI to enhance vulnerability detection and improve the product's reporting capabilities."
"Visibility is an issue for us. Our partners do not know we have integrations with some of IBM products."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment."
"As with most automated security tools, too many false positives."
"Improvement should be done as per the requirements of customers."
"The solution lacks sufficient stability."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"There needs to be better documentation provided. Currently, we need to buy books, or we need to review online some use cases from other professionals who have been using the solution to find out their experience. It is not easy to find out how to properly do a security assessment."
"One area for improvement is the integrated browser, Chromium. Single Sign-On (SSO) methods like Microsoft authentication login sometimes fail and show errors. As a workaround, I have to use a different browser, such as Firefox, to log in and make Burp work."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."
"The solution is cheap."
"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"The solution is moderately priced."
"I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high. HCL AppScan is an expensive tool."
"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."
"AppScan is a little bit expensive. IBM needs to work a little bit on the pricing model, decreasing the license cost."
"The product has premium pricing and could be more competitive."
"The pricing of the solution is cost-effective and is best suited for small and medium-sized businesses."
"It is a cheap solution, but it may not be cheaper than other solutions."
"Burp Suite is affordable."
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is neither cheap nor expensive."
"They should reduce the license cost a little bit. It is $400 per user, and it would be better if they could reduce the licensing fee."
"For a country such as Sri Lanka, the pricing is not reasonable."
"We are using the community version, which is free."
"We have one license. The price is very nominal."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about HCL AppScan?
The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase.
What needs improvement with HCL AppScan?
AppScan needs to improve its handling of false positives. It also requires enhancements in customer support, similar to what Veracode provides. Regularly scheduling calls with clients to discuss fe...
What is your primary use case for HCL AppScan?
The primary use case for AppScan is for security purposes. I compare AppScan with other tools such as Veracode. We use AppScan for vulnerability detection and auto-remediation of vulnerabilities wi...
Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?
OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...
What do you like most about PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
The solution helped us discover vulnerabilities in our applications.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?
I find the price of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional to be very cost-efficient.
 

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan
Burp
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT
Google, Amazon, NASA, FedEx, P&G, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.