We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Spirent CyberFlood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The HCL AppScan turnaround time for Burp Suite or any new feature request is pretty good, and that is why we are sticking with the HCL."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"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 security and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"We use it as a security testing application."
"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."
"The solution is cheap."
"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 feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The tool should improve its output. Scanning is not a challenge anymore since there are many such tools available in the market. The product needs to focus on how its output is being used by end users. It should be also more user-friendly. One of the major challenges is in the tool's integration with applications that need to be scanned. Sometimes, the scanning is not proper."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"It has crashed at times."
"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."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 34th in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Spirent CyberFlood is rated 8.4. 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 Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap, whereas Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE. See our HCL AppScan vs. Spirent CyberFlood report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
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.