We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Visual Studio Test Professional 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 product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing."
"The UI was very intuitive."
"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"I like the recording feature."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"The whole suite is made for .NET development."
"Visual Studio Test Professional's most valuable feature is the rich IDE for doing code and test development."
"The stability has always been very good."
"It's great for the development of .NET."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"It is a good and user-friendly tool."
"Visual Studio is highly powerful. It's probably the best software development tool on the market."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"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 It is very outdated."
"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 solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"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."
"It has crashed at times."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its stability."
"Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
"The vendor must release a lightweight version of the solution."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a little pricey."
"The interface should be made attractive."
"We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Visual Studio Test Professional 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and TestRail.
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.
