No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

HCL AppScan vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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 Application Security Tools
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (16th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (6th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Ranking in Application Security Tools
27th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of HCL AppScan is 2.3%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
HCL AppScan2.3%
Polyspace Code Prover1.3%
Other96.4%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Ravi Khanchandani - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
reviewer2760282 - PeerSpot reviewer
General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of HCL AppScan is scanning QR codes."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language."
"It's a good product; its automated crawler identifies all URLs and performs security tests, and it has very rich test cases which ensure pretty good coverage in terms of security testing while the UI is user friendly and intuitive."
"The solution offers services in a few specific development languages."
"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 Postman."
"From the point of view of quality, very excellent quality, it's above all the tools that I have worked with."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
 

Cons

"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."
"One thing which I think can be improved is the CI/CD Integration"
"The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved."
"The databases for HCL are small and have room for improvement."
"The pricing has room for improvement."
"The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed."
"The product has some technical limitations."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool was expensive."
"With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level."
"The product is moderately priced, though it's an investment due to extensive code analysis needs."
"The price is very expensive."
"AppScan is a little bit expensive. IBM needs to work a little bit on the pricing model, decreasing the license cost."
"The product has premium pricing and could be more competitive."
"HCL AppScan is expensive."
"Our clients are willing to pay the extra money. It is expensive."
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
38%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
Healthcare Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise31
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with HCL AppScan?
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 interf...
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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for HCL AppScan?
AppScan is considered more cost-effective than Veracode, although I have not updated the exact pricing details. Companies often choose based on budget constraints, with Veracode being on the higher...
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two ...
What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?
It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.
What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?
We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...
 

Also Known As

IBM Security AppScan, Rational AppScan, AppScan
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Essex Technology Group Inc., Cisco, West Virginia University, APIS IT
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Find out what your peers are saying about HCL AppScan vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.