We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Klocwork based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is pretty comprehensive, especially around PCI. If you do the static analysis, the dynamic analysis, and then a manual penetration test, it aggregates all of these results into one report. And then they create a PCI-specific report around it which helps to illustrate how the application adheres to different standards."
"The static scan is the feature that we use the most, as it gives us insight into our source code. We have it integrated with our continuous integration, continuous delivery system, so we can get insight quickly."
"The findings of their security analysis are wonderful. You can easily go through all the analyses done by Veracode. You can see what are the flaws and what could be the best possible resolution to minimize those flaws in the application. When an application is being used by the public, security is a challenge. Veracode helps us to analyze all the security flaws, discrepancies, and vulnerabilities inside the application. It provides good reports."
"The Veracode technical support is very good. They are responsive and very knowledgeable."
"Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It enables developers to write secure code from the start by pointing them to the problematic line of code, and saying, "This function/method has security vulnerabilities," then suggests alternatives to fix it. Then, we adopt their suggestions of the tool. By implementing it in the right way, we can fix the issue. For example, if the tool has found a method where it copied one piece of memory into another piece of memory in the code. The tool points to problematic methods with the vulnerability and provides ways to code it more securely. By adopting their suggestions, we are fixing this vulnerability."
"You can easily integrate it with Azure DevOps. This is an added value because we work with Azure DevOps. Veracode is natively supported and we don't have to work with APIs."
"The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end."
"In terms of secure development, the SAST scan is very useful because we are able to identify security flaws in the code base itself, for the application."
"The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"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."
"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."
"It was easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"AppScan is stable."
"This is a stable solution."
"There's extensive functionality with custom rules and a custom knowledge base."
"Klocwork's most valuable feature is the static code analysis feature. It detects the potential problem earlier to allow the developer to receive feedback quickly and then address it before it becomes a problem."
"The most valuable feature is the Incremental analysis."
"Technical support is quite good."
"Sometimes the scans are not done quickly, but the solutions that it provides are really good. The quality is high, but the analysis is not done extremely quickly."
"The training lab is not very user-friendly and takes a long time to set up."
"If Veracode was more diversified, as far as the number of platforms and the number of applications it could do in our favor, we would be using it even more. But there are a number of platforms it doesn't support. For example, I know they support C+, .NET, and Java, but there are certain platforms they don't support and that was disappointing."
"When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"I would like to see them provide more content in the developer training section. This field is really changing each day and there are flaws that are detected each day. Some sort of regular updates to the learning would help."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"I've seen slightly better static analysis tools from other companies when it comes to speed and ease of use."
"The solution could improve by having a mobile version."
"The solution often has a high number of false positives. It's an aspect they really need to improve upon."
"We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated."
"AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly."
"They have to improve support."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"Every update that we receive requires of us a lengthy and involved process."
"I believe it should support more languages, such as Python and JavaScript."
"Klocwork has to improve its features to stay ahead of other free solutions."
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 8 reviews while Klocwork is ranked 24th in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 6.6, while Klocwork is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes "Improves application security, identifies gaps, and performs well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Klocwork writes "Useful code analysis, straightforward implementation, but more features needed". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx, Fortify WebInspect and OWASP Zap, whereas Klocwork is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, Checkmarx and Parasoft SOAtest. See our HCL AppScan vs. Klocwork report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools 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.
