Most Helpful Review
Researched HCL AppScan but chose Veracode: Remediation consulting calls with the vendor help us find vulnerabilities much faster
Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand and other solutions. Updated: February 2020.
397,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.
I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.
The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.
We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle.
One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.
It has an easy-to-use interface.
Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools.
It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities.
This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected.
The static scans are good, and the SaaS as well.
It provides a better integration for our ecosystem.
You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI.
We leverage it as a quality check against code.
We are now deploying less defects to production.
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.
It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end.
Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good.
The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira.
This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market.
t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.
The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution.
The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it.
I do not remember any issues with stability.
The licensing was good.
One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications.
Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.
I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.
Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.
We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.
Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives.
The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report.
It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions.
IBM Security AppScan needs to add performance optimization for quickly scanning the target web applications.
There is not a central management for static and dynamic.
Visibility is an issue for us. Our partners do not know we have integrations with some of IBM products.
I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources.
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.
IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use.
There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost.
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.
The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood.
This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect.
The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to.
The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.
The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment.
Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse.
There were some regulated compliances, which were not there.
Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues.
Pricing and Cost Advice
They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.
They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works.
Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.
No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.
It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool.
I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms.
Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good.
I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others.
AppScan is a little bit expensive. IBM needs to work a little bit on the pricing model, decreasing the license cost.
The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition.
It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount.
The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server.
The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps.
Compared 49% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 39% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Also Known As
|IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan||Fortify on Demand|
Veracode is an application security company that offers an automated cloud-based service for securing web, mobile and third-party enterprise applications. Veracode provides multiple security analysis technologies on a single platform, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, mobile application behavioral analysis and software composition analysis.
IBM Security AppScan enhances web application security and mobile application security, improves application security program management and strengthens regulatory compliance. By scanning your web and mobile applications prior to deployment, AppScan enables you to identify security vulnerabilities and generate reports and fix recommendations.
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand’s application security-as-a-service is the easy and flexible way to identify vulnerabilities in your applications without additional investment in software or personnel. Allow our global team to work for you, providing support and technical expertise 24/7.
Keep your software secure
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Learn more about HCL AppScan
Learn more about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
|State of Missouri, Rekner||Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT||SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.|
Financial Services Firm31%
Software R&D Company38%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm7%
Financial Services Firm13%
Software R&D Company43%
Comms Service Provider10%
Financial Services Firm42%
Software R&D Company8%
Software R&D Company42%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm7%