HCL AppScan vs IBM Rational Test Workbench comparison

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

"AppScan is stable."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."

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

"The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."

"You can easily find particular features and functions through the UI."

"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."

"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."

"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."

"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."

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

"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."

"It has crashed at times."

"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."

"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."

"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."

"They could incorporate AI to enhance vulnerability detection and improve the product's reporting capabilities."

"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script."

"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."

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

"HCL AppScan is expensive."

"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."

"Pricing was the main reason that we went ahead with this solution as they were the lowest in the market."

"The solution is moderately priced."

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

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

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."

"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."