Checkmarx vs. HCL AppScan

If you are going with SAST process or want to improve overall security posture then go for it like integrating it with post deployment steps. If you are more concerned about proactive controls better choose other options such as pee-commit hooks and CI security. Also choose other tools for DAST and API scans.

Incentivized

I would say that HCL AppScan is very simple to understand and use since it uses a user-friendly interface and the terminologies that are used in the interface of the application is very clear. We can automate a scan with any third party like Jenkins. The fact, I don't like is the time takes to execute the application, it should be better.

Incentivized

• Supports a large number of languages
• Finds a large variety of potential risks

Incentivized

• AppScan works well in finding application vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting and all of the OWASP top 10.
• Flexible reporting allows us to generate executive reports for application owners as well as separate technical reports for developers and system engineers.
• Technical reports include remediation information and cross reference CVSS scores
• Because it maintains data on all repeated assessments it helps us to do trending and metrics on compliance

Incentivized

• DAST capability can be the one where it does not support native use case of using OTP based arch
• API Scanning is something that lacks a bit due to not much customizations
• Branch wise reports for SAST is not available

Incentivized

• The functions you want, the points that are difficult to understand.
• Issues presented in the vulnerability diagnostic report may not be fully explained and not well understood.
• You may think it is very basic and natural, "diagnose screen after login" "diagnose according to input transition ⇒ confirmation ⇒ completion" but to do all this, you need regular expressions, and macros, there are many products that require you to write scripts.

Incentivized

Checkmarx's usability is generally good, but it can be a bit complex for new users. The interface may take some time to get used to, especially for those unfamiliar with security tools. Once you become familiar with it, it’s effective and integrates well into development workflows.

Incentivized

Checkmarx is easier to integrate with development tools and gives quick feedback during coding, which is helpful for developers. Veracode is more focused on scanning and reporting for compliance, but it’s more complex to set up. We chose Checkmarx because it fits better into our development process, offering faster scans and more useful suggestions for fixing problems

Incentivized

When we used Veracode, it takes a-lot of time to run a source code analysis. It's user interface is also bit clumsy. So we switched to HCL AppScan. It enables enterprises to scan internal and external applications for vulnerabilities. It provides quick and easy access to the most updated security guidelines by scanning applications against the OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.

Incentivized

• Great diversity of vulnerabilities covered.
• Quicker scans
• They are feature rich compared to other tools I used in the past.
• Dashboards are not customizable enough.
• High number of false positives take up time and sometimes make our report look bad.

Incentivized

• Reduced manual effort by 20-30%
• Integrate 3-4 security solutions with other tools in the system
• prevent sql injection attacks in our business

Incentivized