We primarily use the solution to test web applications regularly.
We primarily use the solution to test web applications regularly.
The solution is able to detect a wide range of vulnerabilities. It's better at it than other products.
The solution is on the expensive side. It's something that clients comment on. If they could make it more reasonable, it would be better.
Lately, we've seen more false negatives.
I've been dealing with the solution for three years at this point.
The solution is largely stable. We've only noticed recently that there are more false negatives. I'm not sure if that means there's an issue or not.
In terms of scalability, many of our customers only have 20-30 websites and therefore one scanner fulfills their requirement. In that sense, we've never really tried to scale the product.
For the most part, WebInspect has pretty good technical support. Not all Micro Focus products have equally good support.
We suggest different solutions to our clients. Some might use Acunetix. We've also used ForeSite in the past as well.
The solution is rather expensive. It's not cheap. If you compare it to, for example, Acunetix, Acunetix is cheaper.
While we generally like WebINspect, if a client has a smaller budget, we might suggest Acunetix simply because it is cheaper. However, if a customer's priority was better scanning for their application, we would suggest WebInspect. We like to give our clients options and choices. We prefer to provide them with options that meet their needs and address their pain points.
Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. If the price was a bit better, I would rate them higher.