We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools."This solution saves us time due to the low number of false positives detected."
"Usually when we deploy the application, there is a process for ethical hacking. The main benefit is that, the ethical hacking is almost clean, every time. So it's less cost, less effort, less time to production."
"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."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"I like the recording feature."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"IBM AppScan has made our work easy, as we can do four to five scans of websites at a time, which saves time when it comes to vulnerability."
"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."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"IBM Security AppScan Source is rather hard to use."
"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."
"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."
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"The reporting part can be better."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 39 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, Checkmarx One and PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
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.
