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."Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"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."
"This is a stable solution."
"It was easy to set up."
"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 static scans are good, and the SaaS as well."
"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."
"The stability and performance are good."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"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."
"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."
"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."
"They could add a software component analysis tool."
"The penetration testing feature should be included."
"Visibility is an issue for us. Our partners do not know we have integrations with some of IBM products."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"Improvement can be done as per customer requirements."
"There are some synchronization issues"
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"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."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th 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 Automation Anywhere (AA).
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.