We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Synopsys Defensics 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 is easy to use."
"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."
"AppScan is stable."
"The static scans are good, and the SaaS as well."
"This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected."
"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."
"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"There's extensive functionality with custom rules and a custom knowledge base."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"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."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"It has crashed at times."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"We would like to see a check in the specific vulnerabilities in mobile applications or rooted devices, such as jailbreaking devices."
"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."
"They could add a software component analysis tool."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"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 It is very outdated."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"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."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
Earn 20 points
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 39 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Synopsys Defensics 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 Synopsys Defensics writes "Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, Checkmarx One and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Fortify on Demand, Invicti and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional.
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.