We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Rapid7 InsightAppSec based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We leverage it as a quality check against code."
"The static scans are good, and the SaaS as well."
"This is a stable solution."
"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 solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It uses a signature-based method to check for problems with your code and will provide an alert if anything is found."
"It's very easy to use and user-friendly. It does the job."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the graphical interface."
"The product’s most valuable feature is UI. It is easy to manage and find vulnerabilities in the application."
"We have seen measurable decrease in the mean time to respond to threats by 20 percent."
"It is very convenient to get reports from the tool, which offers high-level environmental statistics."
"The initial setup for us was easy enough. We didn't face too many issues. Deployment took maybe 30 minutes. It's quite quick and doesn't cause too much trouble at the outset."
"You have various attack modules, and you also have the Attack Replay feature for the attack sequence. You can reproduce an attack and see it. That is a very good feature I noticed in this solution. It helps developers as well."
"Improvement can be done as per customer requirements."
"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."
"IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"I think being able to search across more containers, especially some of the docker elements. We need a little tighter integration there. That's the only thing I can see at this point."
"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."
"I would like more details of what the product can do."
"The interface should be a little bit easier to manage. Sometimes, the logic that they use is kind of strange. They need to work a little bit more on their interface to make it more understandable. The interface is the only problem. I'm using Rapid7, which is very intuitive. There are other applications available in the market with a better interface. They can include more techniques or options to test different types of security because the templates are limited. It would be great to see them follow the MITRE ATT&CK framework or what is there in tools like Veracode and Synopsys."
"We get a lot of false positives during the tests."
"They should add more features. I would like to see them do a little more on static analysis and also interactivity analysis. Currently, it does very basic static analysis. It could do a little more static analysis, which is something that would help. A lot more interactivity analysis should also be there. It should basically look at security during interactivity."
"When you add new projects for the same product, it either duplicates or replaces the scan configuration. If I run a scan for the same product with a different scan configuration, it should keep the previous scan configuration and not replace it with the new scan configuration. It should just add the new scan configuration. That would be helpful. They do keep the results as it is, but the scan configuration keeps changing. For example, I have set a scan configuration to a full scan, and next week, I want to run a new scan for the same product with some changes or new functionalities. I want to run a partial scan. Currently, if I change the scan configuration to partial, it changes the old one also to partial. That should be improved."
"The only concern I have with Rapid7 is that it does not provide enough information about vulnerabilities within AppSec."
"The number of web applications we can scan is limited."
"The reporting is definitely an aspect of the solution that's in need of some work. We found that we'd try to use widgets, but often getting them to work for us wasn't very clear. They need to be more user friendly or offer better instructions."
HCL AppScan is ranked 1st in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 41 reviews while Rapid7 InsightAppSec is ranked 3rd in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) with 12 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Rapid7 InsightAppSec 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 Rapid7 InsightAppSec writes "A highly scalable and robust product that enables users to automate scans". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Rapid7 InsightAppSec is most compared with Rapid7 AppSpider, OWASP Zap, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, Fortify WebInspect and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our HCL AppScan vs. Rapid7 InsightAppSec report.
See our list of best Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) vendors.
We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.