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

HCL AppScan vs Qualys Web Application Scanning comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 29, 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
15th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st)
Qualys Web Application Scan...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
12th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 2.7%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Web Application Scanning is 1.9%, down from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

AnshulTomar - PeerSpot reviewer
Scalable platform with efficient static and dynamic testing features
We use the product for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). By integrating AppScan into our CI/CD pipelines, aligned with Agile methodologies, we ensure that security testing becomes an integral part of the software development lifecycle The…
SubhajitAich - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable solution that can be used for infrastructure vulnerability scanning and web application scanning
Qualys Web Application Scanning is very complex to use, and its graphical interface is not very user-friendly. Compared to other solutions like Tenable and Rapid7, you need to navigate a lot to get the actual results out of Qualys Web Application Scanning. If I have to search for one thing within the entire console, I have to look for it randomly. It's not very easy and very comfortable to find something. Overall, it's a very good solution, but it will be very good if the tool is more user-friendly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"It comes with all of the templates that we need. For example, we are a company that is regulated by PCI. In order to be PCI compliant, we have a lot of checks and procedures to which we have to comply."
"The UI was very intuitive."
"It was easy to set up."
"Its most valuable features are patch management, vulnerability management, and PCI compliance."
"I have found the detection of vulnerabilities tool thorough with good results and the graphical display output to be wonderful and full of colors. It allows many types of outputs, such as bar and chart previews."
"It is easy to use."
"You can integrate your Burp Suite results and create an integrated report. Also, the way it shows the results - threats and exploit details - makes remediation very easy."
"It is a cloud-based solution, so it is easy to scale."
"The most valuable features are the scheduled scanning, detailed reports, asset management, the knowledge database, and the overall product framework."
"The tool links vulnerabilities with DDIs and gives a complete overview of the application. The continuous monitoring capability is good."
"It combines both web application vulnerability management and internal vulnerability management on one platform and dashboard. Usually, you have to purchase separate tools."
 

Cons

"IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"They could incorporate AI to enhance vulnerability detection and improve the product's reporting capabilities."
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"Deployment can be complicated."
"We procured around 110 licenses for Web Application Scanning, but we have issues running concurrent scans. I don't currently have the option to trigger scans for all 100-plus websites. The default limit is around 10 conference scans. It's not very scalable, to be honest, because of the limitation that they put on concurrent scans."
"There's a distinction between internal and external scanning processes that could be streamlined. Currently, for internal scanning, specific configurations and scanner appliances need to be deployed within the network, which differs from the simpler setup for external scans. This dual process complicates the setup for comprehensive scanning coverage."
"The area of false positives could be improved. There are quite a number of false positives as compared to other solutions. They could probably fine tune the algorithm to be able to reduce the number of false positives being detected."
"They should try to include business logic vulnerabilities in the scanner testing."
"The scanner reports a lot of false positives, which is something that needs to be improved."
"In certain cases, this product does have false positives, which the company should work on."
"The product's pricing could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."
"The tool was expensive."
"AppScan is a little bit expensive. IBM needs to work a little bit on the pricing model, decreasing the license cost."
"The solution is moderately priced."
"I would rate the product's pricing a nine out of ten. The product's pricing is expensive compared to the features that they offer."
"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."
"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"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 cost is $30,000 USD for one year to cover WAS (Web Application Security) and the VM (Virtual Machine) security in a company with 200 employees."
"​It is best to be an institutional buyer and directly contact the sales team, as they can provide over-the-top discounts for bulk orders​."
"Licensing was based on the number of assets that you want to scan on your network. You can also do licensing on subscription. On subscription, it is easier and more flexible. You tell Qualys that you want to move from the 1000 to 2000 band or the 3000 or 5000 band, then they will give you the quotation for it. Once you pay for it, applying the licensing is quite easy and effective."
"Qualys has an IT-based licensing based on a yearly license, which is a good way of handling it. However, in some cases, when we do the PCI scanning, the host will not like the scanning and we lose the IT license. So, this could be improved."
"Try the free trial of the product to understand the basic working mechanisms.​"
"Qualys WAS' pricing is competitive."
"I rate the software’s pricing a six out of ten."
"The product has a very good licensing model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

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...
What do you like most about Qualys Web Application Scanning?
The vulnerability management feature is a strong one. And also the patch management feature.
What needs improvement with Qualys Web Application Scanning?
One area for improvement is the user interface. The new UI, which was recently upgraded, feels more complex and less user-friendly than the old version. However, as we continue to use it, we antici...
 

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan
Qualys WAS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT
BskyB, Cartagena, ClearPoint Learning Systems, Connect Group, du, Fortrex Technologies, HBOR, HDI, Highlights for Children, The Lithuanian State Enterprise Centre of Registers, City of Miami Beach, Microsoft, MidlandHR, MSCI Inc., Northern Arizona University, Ofgem, Olympus Europa, PhoneFactor, RTL Nederland, ThousandEyes, VGZ Organisatie B.V.
Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.