We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Seeker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."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."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"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."
"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 is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"This is a stable solution."
"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use."
"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."
"Improving usability could enhance the overall experience with AppScan. It would be beneficial to make the solution more user-friendly, ensuring that everyone can easily navigate and utilize its features."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"If HCL AppScan is able to alert the clients over email once the scan is complete, it would be great. Right now, HCL AppScan doesn't let me know if the scanning part is finished or not, because of which I have to come back and check mostly."
"The solution's scalability can be a matter of concern because one license runs on one machine only."
"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."
HCL AppScan is ranked 12th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 40 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 1 review. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Seeker is rated 7.0. 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 Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Checkmarx One, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and OWASP Zap.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
