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."We leverage it as a quality check against code."
"The solution is cheap."
"It provides a better integration for our ecosystem."
"Usually when we deploy the application, there is a process for ethical hacking. The main benefit is that, the ethical hacking is almost clean, every time. So it's less cost, less effort, less time to production."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"The static scans are good, and the SaaS as well."
"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 solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"Many silly false positives are produced."
"We would like to see a check in the specific vulnerabilities in mobile applications or rooted devices, such as jailbreaking devices."
"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."
"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."
"They could add a software component analysis tool."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"It has crashed at times."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, 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.
