Compare HCL AppScan vs. Spirent CyberFlood
HCL AppScan is ranked 8th in Application Security with 12 reviews while Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 23rd in Application Security with 1 review. HCL AppScan is rated 8.0, while Spirent CyberFlood is rated 0. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes "The ease of use is key, the developers can actually use it and get results from dynamic testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spirent CyberFlood writes "Valuable traffic generator features and has good scalability ". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, whereas Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint, Ixia BreakingPoint VE and Codenomicon Defensics.
Sponsored | ||
Most Helpful Review | ||||||
|
| Use Spirent CyberFlood? Share your opinion. | ||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, SonarQube, Sonatype and others in Application Security. Updated: February 2020. 398,890 professionals have used our research since 2012. | ||||||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | ||
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. | The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator. |
Cons | ||
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 solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes. |
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. | Information Not Available |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security solutions are best for your needs. 398,890 professionals have used our research since 2012. | ||
Top Comparisons | ||
 Compared 50% 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 62% of the time. Compared 18% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time. |
Also Known As | ||
| IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan | CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing | |
Learn | ||
| Veracode Video Not Available | HCL | Spirent Video Not Available |
Overview  | ||
Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects. | 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. | Spirent’s revolutionary CyberFlood security and application testing solution is now available as a virtual platform offering you simplified use, by consolidating multiple test functions into a completely virtual test environment. |
Offer | ||
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 Spirent CyberFlood |
Sample Customers | ||
| State of Missouri, Rekner | Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT | Digicel |
Top Industries | ||
Financial Services Firm31% Insurance Company15% Retailer8% Consumer Goods8% Software R&D Company38% Comms Service Provider13% Financial Services Firm7% Media Company6% | Insurance Company25% Government25% Manufacturing Company13% Financial Services Firm13% Software R&D Company44% Government12% Comms Service Provider9% Media Company6% | No Data Available |
Company Size | ||
Small Business21% Midsize Enterprise25% Large Enterprise55% Small Business16% Midsize Enterprise6% Large Enterprise78% | Small Business10% Midsize Enterprise15% Large Enterprise75% Small Business12% Midsize Enterprise2% Large Enterprise86% | No Data Available |
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, SonarQube, Sonatype and others in Application Security. Updated: February 2020.
398,890 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also HCL AppScan Reviews, Spirent CyberFlood Reviews, and our list of Best Application Security Companies.
We monitor all Application Security 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.