We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and SonarCloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"We use it as a security testing application."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"Technical support is helpful."
"For me, as a manager, it was the ease of use. Inserting security into the development process is not normally an easy project to do. The ability for the developer to actually use it and get results and focuses, that's what counted."
"The security and the dashboard are the most valuable features."
"It is easy it is to use. It is quick to find things, because of the code scanning tools. It's quite simple to use and it is very good the way it reports the findings."
"It was easy to set up."
"SonarCloud is overall a good tool for identifying code smells, bugs, and code duplication, but we've found that using Android Lint is more effective for our needs."
"The reports from SonarCloud are very good."
"The most valuable feature of SonarCloud is its overall performance."
"The solution can be installed locally."
"Recently, they introduced support for mono reports and microservices, which is a noteworthy development as it provides a more detailed view of each service."
"The most valuable features of SonarCloud are the ability to discover vulnerabilities, security weak points, security hotspots, and all the feedback that comes into the feature branch. You can deploy the code with the security, you can eliminate the problem at the developer level rather than identifying the problem in the productions."
"The solution provides continuous code analysis which has improved the quality of our code. It can raise alarms on vulnerabilities with immediate reports on the dashboard. Few things are false positives and we can customize the rules."
"For what it is meant to do, it works pretty well."
"The tool should improve its output. Scanning is not a challenge anymore since there are many such tools available in the market. The product needs to focus on how its output is being used by end users. It should be also more user-friendly. One of the major challenges is in the tool's integration with applications that need to be scanned. Sometimes, the scanning is not proper."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"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."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"They could add a software component analysis tool."
"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."
"The solution needs to improve its customization and flexibility."
"I've been told by the developers that the solution is too limited. It's not testing enough within the containers."
"The documentation needs improvement on optimizing build time for seamless CI/CD integration with our Android apps."
"There's room for improvement in the configuration process, particularly during the initial setup phase."
"We had some issues with the scanner."
"CI/CD pipeline is part of a whole chain of design, development, and production, and it's becoming increasingly crucial to optimize the various tools across different stages. However, it's still a silo approach because the full integration is missing. This isn't just an issue with SonarCloud. It's a general problem with tooling."
"SonarCloud's UI needs enhancement."
"The reports could improve by providing more information. We are not able to use the reports in our operation until they are improved. Additionally, if the vendor provided more customization capabilities it would be a benefit."
HCL AppScan is ranked 12th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 41 reviews while SonarCloud is ranked 10th in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 10 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while SonarCloud is rated 8.4. 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 SonarCloud writes "Beneficial vulnerability discovery, simple to maintain, and proactive support". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas SonarCloud is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Checkmarx One, GitLab and OWASP Zap. See our HCL AppScan vs. SonarCloud report.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.