We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"The security and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"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."
"This is a stable solution."
"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."
"We leverage it as a quality check against code."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"It was easy to set up."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is scalable."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"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."
"A desktop version should be added."
"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"They could add a software component analysis tool."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
HCL AppScan is ranked 12th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 39 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 30 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. 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 Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, Checkmarx One and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork. See our HCL AppScan vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
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.