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

HCL AppScan vs Synopsys Defensics comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

HCL AppScan
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (15th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (13th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st)
Synopsys Defensics
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. HCL AppScan is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 2.6%, down 2.8% compared to last year.
Synopsys Defensics, on the other hand, focuses on Fuzz Testing Tools, holds 20.5% mindshare, up 12.0% since last year.
Application Security Tools
Fuzz Testing 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…
it_user586716 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false.
A security assurance engineer was able to perform due diligence across all network-facing protocols. My prior organization designed, developed and deployed a Network Attached Storage (NAS) appliance. A key part of the company wide security assurance program for all products, is to perform penetration testing against all network facing IP ports. For the web, SSL and RESTful APIs, there are very good COTS and open source tools to perform Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) testing. Unfortunately for NAS protocols like SMB, NFS, CIFS, and iSCSI, I researched and found that Codenomicon Defensics was the only viable source to satisfy our DAST requirements. Through the use of Selenium for automated web testing, it was easily found out that Codenomicon Defensics could be integrated into our Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI / CD) Agile processes, specific to automated testing. Also, like many of the other application security testing products, Defensics incorporates automatic update support and works on Windows, MacOS and Linux desktops.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"IBM AppScan has made our work easy, as we can do four to five scans of websites at a time, which saves time when it comes to vulnerability."
"Technical support is helpful."
"It's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan"
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected."
"The platform has valuable security features, helping us identify sensitive code issues and the possibility of internal applications' exposure to external threats."
"AppScan's most valuable features include its ability to identify vulnerabilities accurately, provide detailed remediation steps, and the newly introduced AI-powered features that enhance its functionality further."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"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."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"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."
"Visibility is an issue for us. Our partners do not know we have integrations with some of IBM products."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. ​"
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of HCL AppScan is okay, in my opinion. You just buy HCL AppScan and don't pay anything anymore, meaning it is just a one-time purchase."
"The product has premium pricing and could be more competitive."
"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."
"The solution is moderately priced."
"The solution is cheap."
"The price is very 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."
"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"Licensing is a bit expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan
Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT
Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.