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."It was easy to set up."
"We leverage it as a quality check against code."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Postman."
"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."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"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."
"It has crashed at times."
"Scans become slow on large websites."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"A desktop version should be added."
"There are so many lines of code with so many different categories that I am likely to get lost. "
"The product has some technical limitations."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
HCL AppScan is ranked 15th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, OWASP Zap 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.