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."The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"We are now deploying less defects to production."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing."
"The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability."
"The solution is very stable; there's nothing in relation to stability to complain about."
"The whole suite is made for .NET development."
"The solution is very stable."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"It is a good and user-friendly tool."
"They have to improve support."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"It has crashed at times."
"Improving usability could enhance the overall experience with AppScan. It would be beneficial to make the solution more user-friendly, ensuring that everyone can easily navigate and utilize its features."
"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 It is very outdated."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"The solution's documentation could be improved for beginners."
"Visual Studio Test Professional could improve by having better integration with external databases."
"Sometimes Visual Studio is slow. It uses a lot of resources like memory and processing power. You should optimize the performance by only installing what you need on your machine. Don't install unnecessary things that will slow your machine."
"The documents on the Microsoft website are not very useful, and they ought to make it easier to find answers."
"The performance could be faster."
"The integration with Git needs improving because it is a bit disjointed and unpredictable."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
"We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."
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.
