HCL AppScan vs OWASP Zap comparison

HCLSoftware and OWASP are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. HCLSoftware is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.3, while OWASP is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.2. HCLSoftware holds a 2.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to OWASP’s 3.4% mindshare. Additionally, 84% of HCLSoftware users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OWASP users who would recommend it.

HCL AppScan

Read 44 HCL AppScan reviews

4,709 Views
3,485 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

OWASP Zap

Read 41 OWASP Zap reviews

7,440 Views
6,845 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

HCL AppScan

OWASP Zap

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

HCL AppScan and OWASP Zap are prominent competitors in the security testing landscape. HCL AppScan holds an advantage in terms of support and deployment, whereas OWASP Zap stands out for its cost-effectiveness and feature set.

Features: HCL AppScan provides comprehensive security testing with robust automation and a vast vulnerability database, making it suitable for complex environments. It also supports extensive reporting capabilities. OWASP Zap offers essential security testing features focused on user-friendliness and dynamic analysis tools, promoting accessibility and flexibility for smaller teams.

Room for Improvement: HCL AppScan could enhance its tool integration capabilities and improve the depth of its reporting features. Additionally, users suggest better support for continuous integration processes. OWASP Zap could improve in scalability and the depth of its vulnerability analysis. Enhancing its user interface and providing more detailed documentation are also areas for OWASP Zap to focus on.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: HCL AppScan is known for quick deployment and reliable customer service, fitting enterprise environments well. The enterprise-grade support ensures businesses can integrate it smoothly into existing systems. OWASP Zap, on the other hand, is appreciated for its ease of initial setup, suitable for smaller teams, though customer support is more limited compared to HCL AppScan.

Pricing and ROI: HCL AppScan users note a high initial setup cost but recognize the ROI provided through extensive features and security insights. OWASP Zap offers a free open-source model, delivering significant ROI for budget-conscious teams thanks to its cost-effective nature without additional expenses, making it a popular choice for those with limited budgets.

To learn more, read our detailed HCL AppScan vs. OWASP Zap Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

HCL AppScan vs. OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

HCL AppScan

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

5.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (19th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (6th)

OWASP Zap

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

9th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 2.2%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OWASP Zap is 3.4%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OWASP Zap	3.4%
HCL AppScan	2.2%
Other	94.4%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

Ravi Khanchandani

Founder Director at Techsa Services

Has improved identification of encryption and authentication issues across cloud and on-prem applications

During the learning curve of onboarding HCL AppScan, we learned that HCL has altered the portfolio and now offers HCL AppScan 360, which has a much better look and feel with an improved user interface. However, there is one feature called SCA, which stands for Software Composition Analysis, that could be improved. When I'm doing an application scan, HCL AppScan has the ability to generate information about what components are in use. For example, if I'm scanning a web application, it shows me the various components being used. It tells me whether I have Java libraries, .NET frameworks, or other log management libraries such as Log4j, and what versions of those specific components are present. I would like to see more detailed reports from the tool. Currently, you can find out the components belonging to a specific software, but if detailed reporting became available, you would be in a better position to identify vulnerabilities. For instance, I could identify that I had the Log4j vulnerability and know that I need to fix my application accordingly. If they add the features I'm describing, I would consider giving them a higher rating. However, I've only been experienced with the product for three months.

Read full review

Nithin-K

Technical Analyst at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Open source testing tool empowers manual activities and has room to improve integration and reporting features

The improvement that has to be done for APIs focuses on manual activities where the feature exists, but it is not at the same level as what Burp Suite does with intercepting and tools such as Postman, so it needs improvement. There are limitations with authentication levels, particularly with form-based and cookie-based authentication. However, overall, we are satisfied with OWASP Zap as there are no major issues, and improving the scan engine could be beneficial. When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"It identifies all the URLs and domains on its own and then performs tests and provides the results."

"The UI was very intuitive."

"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."

"It's honestly one of the best products in the application security portfolio."

"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."

"Now we just send it to AppScan and we can do other stuff like defining processes or dealing with management issues."

"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."

"AppScan's most valuable features include its ability to identify vulnerabilities accurately, provide detailed remediation steps, and the newly introduced AI-powered features that enhance its functionality further."

More HCL AppScan pros

"OWASP Zap is straightforward to use. If someone doesn't have the budget for tools like Burp Suite, OWASP Zap is an excellent alternative."

"It's great that we can use it with Portswigger Burp."

"The HUD is a good feature that provides on-site testing and saves a lot of time."

"If you're a company and you've got your own websites, internally and externally, it's great."

"We use the solution for security testing."

"Automatic scanning is a valuable feature and very easy to use."

"Two features are valuable. The first one is that the scan gets completed really quickly, and the second one is that even though it searches in a limited scope, what it does in that limited scope is very good. When you use Zap for testing, you're only using it for specific aspects or you're only looking for certain things. It works very well in that limited scope."

"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. I think it's stable enough. I don't see any crashes within the application, so its stability is high."

More OWASP Zap pros

Cons

"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."

"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."

"We would like to see a check in the specific vulnerabilities in mobile applications or rooted devices, such as jailbreaking devices."

"I would like to see the roadmap for this product. We are still waiting to see it as we have only so many resources."

"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."

"HCL AppScan needs to improve security."

"The tool should improve its output. Scanning is not a challenge anymore since there are many such tools available in the market. The product needs to focus on how its output is being used by end users. It should be also more user-friendly. One of the major challenges is in the tool's integration with applications that need to be scanned. Sometimes, the scanning is not proper."

"It has crashed at times."

More HCL AppScan cons

"I would like to see a version of “repeater” within OWASP ZAP, a tool capable of sending from one to 1000 of the same requests, but with preselected modified fields, changing from a predetermined word list, or manually created."

"It would be nice to have a solid SQL injection engine built into Zap."

"OWASP should work on reducing false positives by using AI and ML algorithms."

"The product reporting could be improved."

"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."

"There isn't too much information about it online."

"When comparing OWASP Zap and Burp Suite, the main difference besides pricing is that OWASP Zap has limitations with reporting levels and UI, which affects its reporting capabilities, whereas Burp Suite is already advancing with new AI features and scanning capabilities that OWASP Zap seems to be lacking."

"The forced browse has been incorporated into the program and it is resource-intensive."

More OWASP Zap cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"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."

"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."

"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 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."

"The price is very expensive."

"The solution is cheap."

More HCL AppScan pricing and cost advice

"It's free. It's good for us because we don't know what the extent of our use will be yet. It's good to start with something free and easy to use."

"The solution’s pricing is high."

"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."

"We have used the freeware version. I believe Zap only has freeware."

"The tool is open source."

"OWASP Zap is free to use."

"It is open source, and we can scan freely."

"This solution is open source and free."

More OWASP Zap pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	31

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about HCL AppScan?

The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is its integration with the SDLC, particularly during the coding phase.

See all answers

What needs improvement with HCL AppScan?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for HCL AppScan?

I'm currently working with BigFix and HCL AppScan. At least three people in my company are using HCL AppScan. Since we are a reseller, we run it in both lab environments and live production applica...

See all answers

Is OWASP Zap better than PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro?

OWASP Zap and PortSwigger Burp Suite Pro have many similar features. OWASP Zap has web application scanning available with basic security vulnerabilities while Burp Suite Pro has it available with ...

See all answers

What do you like most about OWASP Zap?

The best feature is the Zap HUD (Heads Up Display) because the customers can use the website normally. If we scan websites with automatic scanning, and the website has a web application firewall, i...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OWASP Zap?

OWASP might be cost-effective, however, people prefer to use the free edition available as open source.

See all answers

Comparisons

Veracode vs HCL AppScan

Compared 9% of the time

SonarQube vs HCL AppScan

Compared 8% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs HCL AppScan

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx One vs HCL AppScan

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs HCL AppScan

Compared 5% of the time

More HCL AppScan Competitors

Acunetix vs OWASP Zap

Compared 13% of the time

SonarQube vs OWASP Zap

Compared 12% of the time

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OWASP Zap

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs OWASP Zap

Compared 3% of the time

More OWASP Zap Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

HCL AppScan

March 2026

Download HCL AppScan product report

Buyer's Guide

OWASP Zap

March 2026

Download OWASP Zap product report

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan

No data available

Overview

IBM Security AppScan enhances web application security and mobile application security, improves application security program management and strengthens regulatory compliance. By scanning your web and mobile applications prior to deployment, AppScan enables you to identify security vulnerabilities and generate reports and fix recommendations.

HCLSoftware

OWASP Zap is a free and open-source web application security scanner.

The solution helps developers identify vulnerabilities in their web applications by actively scanning for common security issues.

With its user-friendly interface and powerful features, Zap is a popular choice among developers for ensuring the security of their web applications.

OWASP

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT

1. Google 2. Microsoft 3. IBM 4. Amazon 5. Facebook 6. Twitter 7. LinkedIn 8. Netflix 9. Adobe 10. PayPal 11. Salesforce 12. Cisco 13. Oracle 14. Intel 15. HP 16. Dell 17. VMware 18. Symantec 19. McAfee 20. Citrix 21. Red Hat 22. Juniper Networks 23. SAP 24. Accenture 25. Deloitte 26. Ernst & Young 27. PwC 28. KPMG 29. Capgemini 30. Infosys 31. Wipro 32. TCS

Buyer's Guide

HCL AppScan vs. OWASP Zap

March 2026

Free Report: HCL AppScan vs. OWASP Zap

Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. OWASP Zap and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our HCL AppScan vs. OWASP Zap report.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.