HCL AppScan vs IBM Rational Performance Tester comparison

"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."

"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."

"The reporting part is the most valuable feature."

"We use it as a security testing application."

"This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected."

"It's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan"

"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."

"We are now deploying less defects to production."

"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."

"It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."

"They could add a software component analysis tool."

"The product has some technical limitations."

"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."

"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."

"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"

"There is not a central management for static and dynamic."

"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. ​"

"Many silly false positives are produced."

"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."

"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."

"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."

"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."

"I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high. HCL AppScan is an expensive tool."

"I would rate the product's pricing a nine out of ten. The product's pricing is expensive compared to the features that they offer."

"The solution is cheap."

"AppScan is a little bit expensive. IBM needs to work a little bit on the pricing model, decreasing the license cost."

"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."

"The product has premium pricing and could be more competitive."

"It is much cheaper than Micro Focus LoadRunner. We need perpetual licenses. Support is included in the first sale. After that, you need to renew support every year."