We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools."It's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan"
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"Technical support is helpful."
"It provides a better integration for our ecosystem."
"For me, as a manager, it was the ease of use. Inserting security into the development process is not normally an easy project to do. The ability for the developer to actually use it and get results and focuses, that's what counted."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"What I like most about Visual Studio Test Professional is the way people publish templates and publish integration."
"The most valuable feature of Visual Studio Test Professional is its ease of use."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a scalable solution."
"The debugging feature is valuable."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a very scalable solution."
"The solution is easy to use and they have also integrated with Microsoft."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"The solution's scalability can be a matter of concern because one license runs on one machine only."
"If HCL AppScan is able to alert the clients over email once the scan is complete, it would be great. Right now, HCL AppScan doesn't let me know if the scanning part is finished or not, because of which I have to come back and check mostly."
"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."
"IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications."
"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."
"Sometimes, the product is too complex to use."
"Visual Studio Test Professional could improve by having better integration with external databases."
"The pricing of this solution should be lowered."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"It is hard to learn, and you need to invest time to understand it."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"The tool crashes and has high memory consumption."
"The product must provide more automation."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 48 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
We monitor all Application Security 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.
