We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Selenium HQ 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 the solution is the scanning or security part."
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI."
"It was easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications."
"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."
"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."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 40 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and OWASP Zap, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
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.
