Introduction (100–200 words)
Application Security Testing (AST) platforms help teams find and fix vulnerabilities in software before attackers do. In simple terms: SAST scans your source code (and sometimes build artifacts) for insecure patterns, while DAST tests running applications like an attacker would—probing endpoints, forms, and APIs for exploitable behavior. Many modern platforms blend SAST/DAST with adjacent capabilities like Software Composition Analysis (SCA), secrets detection, and CI/CD guardrails.
This category matters even more in 2026+ because software delivery is faster (AI-assisted coding, microservices, APIs everywhere), the attack surface is larger (cloud-native + third-party dependencies), and regulators and customers increasingly expect provable security controls—not just best-effort scanning.
Common use cases include:
- Preventing vulnerable code from merging via CI checks
- Continuous web and API scanning of production-like environments
- Compliance reporting for internal audits and customer security reviews
- Reducing security backlog by prioritizing exploitable findings
- Enabling developer-first remediation workflows in IDEs and PRs
What buyers should evaluate:
- Detection quality (true positives vs noise) for your languages/frameworks
- Coverage: SAST, DAST, API scanning, auth handling, incremental scans
- Developer workflow fit: PR comments, IDE plugins, fix guidance
- CI/CD integration (GitHub/GitLab/Jenkins/Azure DevOps) and policy gates
- Risk-based prioritization and deduplication across scans
- Scalability for repos/services and scan concurrency
- Security controls (RBAC, audit logs, SSO) and tenant isolation
- Reporting for leadership, auditors, and customers
- Deployment model (SaaS vs self-hosted) and data residency
- Total cost of ownership: licensing + setup + tuning + triage time
Mandatory paragraph
Best for: engineering leaders, AppSec teams, and platform teams at startups through enterprises that ship web apps/APIs frequently and need repeatable, measurable vulnerability management. Especially relevant for fintech, healthcare, SaaS, e-commerce, and any business that handles sensitive customer data.
Not ideal for: teams shipping only static websites, or organizations without the ability to remediate findings (no ownership or backlog capacity). Also not ideal if your main risk is infrastructure misconfiguration—then CSPM/CIEM and cloud posture tooling may be a better first investment than SAST/DAST.
Key Trends in Application Security Testing (SAST/DAST) Platforms for 2026 and Beyond
- AI-assisted triage and remediation: more platforms propose likely fixes, reduce duplicates, and explain exploitability in developer-friendly language (with human review still required).
- API-first security testing: deeper support for OpenAPI/Swagger, GraphQL, and async APIs; better auth flows and token handling for DAST.
- Shift-left without slowing delivery: incremental SAST, PR-scoped scanning, and policy-as-code gates that minimize CI time.
- Convergence into “AppSec platforms”: SAST/DAST increasingly bundled with SCA, secrets scanning, IaC scanning, container scanning, and ASPM dashboards.
- Risk-based prioritization over raw findings: exploitability signals, reachable code analysis, asset criticality, and runtime context feeding prioritization.
- Enterprise data residency and hybrid scanning: SaaS consoles with on-prem scan engines to keep traffic/data inside private networks.
- Better interoperability: normalized findings schemas, stronger APIs, and integrations into SIEM/SOAR, ticketing, and developer portals.
- Security controls as table stakes: SSO/RBAC/audit logging expectations rising; vendors pressured to provide clearer operational controls.
- Secure SDLC metrics: time-to-fix, policy compliance, and trend reporting becoming central to leadership dashboards.
- Pricing pressure and consolidation: buyers prefer fewer platforms; vendors push suite bundles while customers demand transparent usage-based models.
How We Selected These Tools (Methodology)
- Prioritized widely recognized platforms with meaningful SAST and/or DAST capability used in real-world SDLCs.
- Favored tools that support modern CI/CD workflows and developer integrations (PR/commit/IDE).
- Considered breadth of language/framework coverage and ability to handle modern web apps and APIs.
- Evaluated enterprise readiness: governance, roles, reporting, and deployment flexibility (SaaS/self-hosted/hybrid).
- Weighted tools with signs of operational maturity: scanning at scale, tuning options, and workflow automation.
- Looked for ecosystem fit: integrations with source control, CI, ticketing, and security tooling.
- Included a mix of enterprise suites and developer-first tools to match different buyer profiles.
- Kept claims conservative where details vary by edition; marked unclear items as “Not publicly stated” or “Varies / N/A.”
Top 10 Application Security Testing (SAST/DAST) Platforms Tools
#1 — Veracode
Short description (2–3 lines): A long-established application security platform offering SAST and DAST capabilities designed for governance-heavy programs. Commonly used by mid-market and enterprise teams needing centralized policy and reporting.
Key Features
- Static analysis workflows geared for enterprise governance
- Dynamic web application scanning (capabilities vary by package)
- Centralized finding management, prioritization, and reporting
- CI/CD integrations for automated scanning and release gates
- Developer-oriented remediation guidance (varies by feature set)
- Portfolio-level visibility across many apps and teams
Pros
- Strong fit for organizations that need structured AppSec programs and reporting
- Broad adoption in regulated industries and vendor security review contexts
- Designed to scale across many applications
Cons
- Can require process tuning to reduce noise and align with developer workflows
- Feature packaging can be complex depending on what you need (SAST vs DAST vs add-ons)
- Best results often require upfront configuration and governance
Platforms / Deployment
Cloud (SaaS). Hybrid scanning may be possible depending on setup; Varies / N/A.
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Typically integrates into common DevOps pipelines and ticketing workflows to route issues to the right owners and enforce policies.
- GitHub / GitLab / Bitbucket (integration patterns vary)
- Jenkins / Azure DevOps and other CI systems (varies)
- Jira and common ticketing tools (varies)
- APIs and webhooks (varies)
- SIEM/SOAR export patterns (varies)
Support & Community
Commercial vendor support with onboarding options; community presence exists but is smaller than open-source ecosystems. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#2 — Checkmarx One (Checkmarx)
Short description (2–3 lines): An application security platform known for SAST and broader AppSec capabilities, often used by enterprises that want deep code scanning plus centralized control and automation.
Key Features
- SAST scanning tuned for enterprise codebases and policy enforcement
- Workflow automation for triage, assignment, and remediation tracking
- CI/CD and pull-request integration patterns (varies by SCM)
- Reporting for portfolio visibility and audit needs
- Configuration options for rules, baselines, and incremental workflows
- Broader AppSec platform approach (capabilities vary by package)
Pros
- Strong enterprise fit for large repositories and many teams
- Flexible governance and policy models for complex organizations
- Good alignment with “platformizing” AppSec across a portfolio
Cons
- Admin/setup can be non-trivial for smaller teams
- Tuning may be required to match your threat model and reduce false positives
- Packaging across modules can complicate procurement
Platforms / Deployment
Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid (edition and architecture dependent)
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Commonly used with enterprise DevOps stacks and supports automation patterns for PR checks and pipeline gates.
- GitHub / GitLab / Bitbucket (varies)
- Jenkins / Azure DevOps and other CI tools (varies)
- Jira / ServiceNow-style workflows (varies)
- APIs for automation and custom dashboards (varies)
- IDE integration patterns (varies)
Support & Community
Enterprise support and professional services options are typical for this class of tool. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#3 — OpenText Fortify
Short description (2–3 lines): A well-known enterprise application security suite with strong roots in SAST. Often chosen by large organizations that want formal AppSec processes and self-hosting options.
Key Features
- Enterprise-grade SAST workflows with rules and audit capabilities
- Centralized vulnerability management and reporting
- CI/CD integration approaches for build-time scanning and gating
- Triage and audit workflows for security reviewers
- Portfolio governance and compliance-oriented reporting
- Options that may include DAST capabilities depending on configuration/package
Pros
- Strong fit for organizations with formal security review processes
- Mature workflows for auditability and governance
- Often compatible with self-hosted enterprise environments
Cons
- Can feel heavyweight for small teams or fast-moving product orgs
- Requires investment in configuration, rule tuning, and operational ownership
- UX and developer experience may lag more developer-first tools (varies by version)
Platforms / Deployment
Self-hosted / Hybrid (varies by edition); Cloud options may exist: Varies / N/A
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Commonly integrates with enterprise CI/CD, issue tracking, and reporting pipelines.
- Jenkins and common CI servers (varies)
- GitHub / GitLab / Bitbucket (varies)
- Jira and enterprise ticketing patterns (varies)
- Export formats/APIs for custom reporting (varies)
- IDE plugins/workflows (varies)
Support & Community
Commercial support and enterprise onboarding are typical; community is smaller than open-source alternatives. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#4 — GitHub Advanced Security (CodeQL)
Short description (2–3 lines): GitHub’s security suite centered on CodeQL-based code scanning, built for teams already on GitHub who want tight PR workflows and developer-native security checks.
Key Features
- Code scanning with query-based detection (CodeQL)
- Pull request annotations and security checks in the developer workflow
- Policy and alert management within GitHub’s platform experience
- Security campaigns/workflows (feature availability may vary)
- Works well for mono-repos and PR-based development
- Can be combined with other GitHub security capabilities (varies by plan)
Pros
- Excellent developer experience if your SDLC is GitHub-centric
- Strong workflow integration (alerts, PR feedback, code review context)
- Scales naturally with GitHub repo management patterns
Cons
- Primarily strongest for code scanning; full DAST is typically handled via separate tools
- Best value depends on how much of your lifecycle is on GitHub
- Advanced configuration (custom queries) requires expertise
Platforms / Deployment
Web. Cloud / Self-hosted (GitHub Enterprise Server) / Hybrid (org dependent)
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by GitHub plan/deployment
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Because it sits inside GitHub, the ecosystem advantage is automation through Actions and native PR workflows.
- GitHub Actions for CI automation
- Issue management and security alert routing (native)
- Webhooks and APIs for workflow automation
- Integration with third-party scanning tools via CI pipelines
- Export/notification patterns for SIEM/ticketing (varies)
Support & Community
Strong documentation and broad community mindshare due to GitHub’s reach; enterprise support depends on plan. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#5 — GitLab (Built-in SAST/DAST in GitLab Ultimate and related tiers)
Short description (2–3 lines): A DevSecOps platform with integrated security scanning options, including SAST and DAST features designed to run directly in pipelines and report in merge requests.
Key Features
- Pipeline-native SAST and DAST job templates (capabilities vary by tier)
- Merge request security widgets and vulnerability reporting
- Policy enforcement and approval workflows (tier dependent)
- Centralized vulnerability management across projects
- Container/IaC/security scanning ecosystem (varies by tier/package)
- Supports self-managed environments for regulated needs
Pros
- Very smooth integration when your repos and CI/CD are already in GitLab
- Encourages consistent security scanning across teams via templates
- Good balance of security + delivery workflow in one platform
Cons
- Feature availability is tier-dependent and can be confusing at purchase time
- DAST often needs environment readiness and auth configuration to be effective
- Might be less flexible than best-of-breed standalone scanners for niche needs
Platforms / Deployment
Web. Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan/deployment
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
GitLab’s strength is “one platform,” plus integrations for teams that use external tooling.
- Kubernetes and deployment integrations (varies)
- Jira and external issue trackers (varies)
- Webhooks and APIs for automation
- Runner ecosystem for executing scans in private networks
- Third-party security tool ingestion patterns (varies)
Support & Community
Large community for core GitLab; commercial support quality varies by tier and contract. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#6 — Snyk (Snyk Code + related platform capabilities)
Short description (2–3 lines): A developer-first security platform that includes SAST-like code analysis (Snyk Code) and commonly pairs with dependency and container security. Best for teams prioritizing developer adoption and fast feedback.
Key Features
- Code analysis focused on developer workflow speed and usability
- IDE and pull request integrations for early feedback
- Prioritization that emphasizes actionable findings (implementation varies)
- Policy controls to manage org-wide standards (varies)
- Reporting for engineering and security stakeholders
- Platform approach across code and other software supply chain areas (varies)
Pros
- Developer-friendly onboarding and day-to-day usability
- Fits modern CI/CD and PR-based workflows well
- Strong for organizations standardizing security tooling across dev teams
Cons
- Full DAST coverage is typically handled via separate dedicated DAST tools
- Advanced enterprise governance needs may require additional configuration
- Cost/value depends on how many modules you adopt
Platforms / Deployment
Web. Cloud (SaaS) / Hybrid integration patterns (e.g., brokers/agents): Varies
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Common integrations focus on meeting developers where they work: source control, CI, and IDEs.
- GitHub / GitLab / Bitbucket (varies)
- CI tools (Jenkins, Azure DevOps, etc.) via plugins/actions (varies)
- IDEs (integration availability varies)
- Ticketing workflows (Jira, etc.) (varies)
- APIs for automation and reporting (varies)
Support & Community
Strong documentation and enablement materials; commercial support varies by plan. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#7 — SonarQube / SonarCloud (SonarSource)
Short description (2–3 lines): A widely used code quality and security analysis platform that many teams adopt as a “baseline” for continuous code scanning. Common in dev-led organizations that want fast feedback in PRs.
Key Features
- Static code analysis for vulnerabilities and code smells
- Quality gates and PR decoration to block risky changes
- Multi-language support (coverage varies by edition and language)
- Reporting for maintainability/security trends over time
- Works well as a continuous scanning layer in CI
- Cloud (SonarCloud) and self-hosted (SonarQube) options
Pros
- Very approachable for developers; integrates naturally into CI and PRs
- Good for continuous hygiene and standardization across many repos
- Flexible deployment options across cloud and self-managed environments
Cons
- Not a full DAST solution; dynamic testing usually requires separate tooling
- Security depth may be different than specialized enterprise SAST platforms for certain use cases
- Rule tuning and governance across many teams takes operational effort
Platforms / Deployment
Web. Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by edition / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Sonar tools are commonly used as a CI “quality gate” layer with broad CI/SCM support.
- GitHub / GitLab / Bitbucket PR decoration (varies)
- Jenkins and common CI servers (varies)
- IDE integrations (varies)
- APIs for metrics and reporting automation
- Third-party reporting/BI exports (varies)
Support & Community
Strong community visibility and usage; commercial support depends on edition. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#8 — Invicti (formerly Netsparker)
Short description (2–3 lines): A dedicated DAST platform focused on automated web application and API security testing. Commonly used by security teams that need continuous scanning and validation for many web assets.
Key Features
- Automated DAST scanning for web applications (coverage depends on app type)
- Scanning at scale across multiple targets with scheduling and management
- Support for authenticated scanning patterns (setup varies)
- Reporting suited for remediation workflows and audit evidence
- Team collaboration and vulnerability lifecycle management
- Options for on-prem or cloud-style deployment (varies by edition)
Pros
- Strong choice when DAST is the primary need (web apps and APIs)
- Centralized scanning operations for many sites and environments
- Useful for recurring compliance and release verification workflows
Cons
- DAST effectiveness depends heavily on environment access and auth configuration
- May not replace SAST for code-level issues and secure coding enforcement
- Large-scale scanning requires governance to avoid scanning “noise” and duplication
Platforms / Deployment
Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid (varies by edition)
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
DAST programs usually live alongside CI/CD and ticketing; Invicti-style tools commonly integrate into those systems.
- CI/CD triggers for pre-release scans (varies)
- Jira and common ticketing tools (varies)
- Webhooks/APIs for automation (varies)
- SSO/IdP integration patterns (varies)
- Export formats for security reporting (varies)
Support & Community
Commercial support with onboarding resources; community footprint is smaller than developer-first tools. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#9 — Rapid7 InsightAppSec
Short description (2–3 lines): A DAST-focused platform aimed at finding runtime vulnerabilities in web apps and APIs, often adopted by teams already using Rapid7 security tooling for visibility and operations.
Key Features
- DAST scanning for web applications and APIs (coverage varies)
- Scheduling and automation for continuous testing
- Authenticated scanning support (setup varies by app/auth type)
- Finding management and remediation workflows
- Reporting geared toward operational security teams
- Integration patterns that fit broader vulnerability management workflows
Pros
- Solid operational fit for teams that run ongoing scanning programs
- Useful for security teams who need centralized DAST visibility
- Often aligns with broader security operations processes
Cons
- Not a replacement for SAST; code-level issues still need separate tooling
- DAST results quality depends on app complexity and authentication configuration
- Large environments may require careful target management and tuning
Platforms / Deployment
Cloud / Hybrid (scan engines/connectivity may be required): Varies
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Common integration patterns center on ticketing, alerting, and CI triggers for scanning.
- Jira and ticketing workflows (varies)
- CI/CD triggers and automation hooks (varies)
- APIs for exporting findings and metrics (varies)
- SSO/IdP patterns (varies)
- SIEM/SOAR integration patterns (varies)
Support & Community
Commercial support; community engagement depends on the broader Rapid7 ecosystem. Varies / Not publicly stated.
#10 — Burp Suite Enterprise Edition (PortSwigger)
Short description (2–3 lines): An enterprise DAST platform built around the Burp scanning engine, often selected by security teams familiar with Burp Suite for manual testing who want scalable automated scanning.
Key Features
- Automated DAST scanning with Burp’s scanning capabilities
- Centralized management of scan targets and schedules
- Collaboration workflows for security teams managing many findings
- Configuration for authenticated scanning (varies by app/auth)
- Reporting for remediation and verification cycles
- Aligns well with teams that do both automated and manual testing
Pros
- Strong fit if your team already relies on Burp for application testing
- Good bridge between automated scanning and deeper manual validation
- Useful for scaling DAST programs across many targets
Cons
- Still DAST-first: you’ll likely need a separate SAST tool for code issues
- Authenticated scanning can take effort to configure and maintain
- Enterprise rollout requires target governance and operational ownership
Platforms / Deployment
Self-hosted (typical). Cloud options: Varies / N/A
Security & Compliance
SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs, encryption: Varies by plan / Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Burp EE commonly integrates into CI and ticketing to operationalize findings.
- CI/CD automation hooks (varies)
- Jira and issue management integrations (varies)
- APIs for scan orchestration and reporting (varies)
- Integration with Burp Suite Professional workflows (organizational process)
- Export formats for security reporting (varies)
Support & Community
Strong security tester community around Burp generally; enterprise support varies by contract. Varies / Not publicly stated.
Comparison Table (Top 10)
| Tool Name | Best For | Platform(s) Supported | Deployment (Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid) | Standout Feature | Public Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veracode | Governance-heavy SAST/DAST programs | Web | Cloud | Centralized AppSec program reporting | N/A |
| Checkmarx One | Enterprise SAST at scale | Web | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | Portfolio-scale SAST + policy controls | N/A |
| OpenText Fortify | Formal enterprise SAST workflows | Windows/macOS/Linux (components vary), Web | Self-hosted / Hybrid | Audit-friendly SAST processes | N/A |
| GitHub Advanced Security | GitHub-native code scanning | Web | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | PR-native CodeQL scanning | N/A |
| GitLab Security | CI/CD-native SAST/DAST in one platform | Web | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | Pipeline templates + MR security views | N/A |
| Snyk | Developer-first code security | Web | Cloud / Hybrid (varies) | Fast developer workflow integrations | N/A |
| SonarQube / SonarCloud | Continuous code hygiene + security baseline | Web | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | Quality gates and PR decoration | N/A |
| Invicti | Dedicated automated DAST for many web assets | Web | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | DAST program management at scale | N/A |
| Rapid7 InsightAppSec | Operational DAST within security programs | Web | Cloud / Hybrid (varies) | Continuous DAST with security-ops fit | N/A |
| Burp Suite Enterprise Edition | Scalable Burp-based DAST | Web | Self-hosted (typical) | Bridge between automated + manual testing | N/A |
Evaluation & Scoring of Application Security Testing (SAST/DAST) Platforms
Scoring model (1–10 per criterion), weighted total (0–10) using:
- Core features – 25%
- Ease of use – 15%
- Integrations & ecosystem – 15%
- Security & compliance – 10%
- Performance & reliability – 10%
- Support & community – 10%
- Price / value – 15%
| Tool Name | Core (25%) | Ease (15%) | Integrations (15%) | Security (10%) | Performance (10%) | Support (10%) | Value (15%) | Weighted Total (0–10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veracode | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 7.45 |
| Checkmarx One | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7.15 |
| OpenText Fortify | 8 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6.85 |
| GitHub Advanced Security | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7.50 |
| GitLab Security | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.00 |
| Snyk | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7.15 |
| SonarQube / SonarCloud | 6 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7.10 |
| Invicti | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6.80 |
| Rapid7 InsightAppSec | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6.80 |
| Burp Suite Enterprise Edition | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6.65 |
How to interpret these scores:
- Scores are comparative, not absolute; a “7” can be excellent if it matches your workflow.
- “Core features” reflects breadth/depth across SAST/DAST and operational features (not just scan engines).
- “Ease” emphasizes day-to-day developer/security usability, not just initial setup.
- Weighted totals help shortlist, but your environment (languages, auth, SDLC) can flip the ranking quickly.
Which Application Security Testing (SAST/DAST) Platforms Tool Is Right for You?
Solo / Freelancer
If you’re a solo developer or consultant, prioritize fast setup, clear feedback, and low cost.
- Consider SonarQube/SonarCloud as a practical baseline for continuous code scanning and quality gates.
- If your clients use GitHub heavily, GitHub Advanced Security can be compelling if it’s already available in their plan and workflow.
- For web apps, you may use DAST selectively; a full enterprise DAST platform may be overkill unless you’re paid to run recurring scans.
SMB
SMBs usually need developer adoption and predictable operations more than “maximum knobs.”
- GitLab Security is a strong choice if you’re already on GitLab and want SAST/DAST directly in pipelines.
- Snyk is often a fit for developer-first teams who want quick wins in PRs and IDEs (especially when combined with broader supply-chain security).
- For DAST-heavy needs (customer-facing web apps), consider Invicti or Rapid7 InsightAppSec—but plan time for auth setup and environment access.
Mid-Market
Mid-market teams benefit from platforms that can scale across multiple teams while still being usable.
- Veracode and Checkmarx One are common choices when you need centralized reporting, standardized policies, and multiple app teams.
- Pairing a code-focused tool (SAST) with a dedicated DAST platform can work well when your web attack surface is large and release cadence is high.
- If you’re GitHub-first, GitHub Advanced Security plus a dedicated DAST tool is a common pattern.
Enterprise
Enterprises typically need governance, auditability, and deployment flexibility.
- Checkmarx One and Veracode are often evaluated for large-scale application portfolios and policy enforcement.
- OpenText Fortify is frequently considered when self-hosting and formal review/audit workflows matter.
- For DAST at scale, Invicti or Burp Suite Enterprise Edition can complement SAST—especially when you need ongoing scanning plus verification.
Budget vs Premium
- Budget-leaning: SonarQube/SonarCloud (baseline SAST-like scanning), GitLab Security (if already paying for tiers).
- Premium/enterprise: Veracode, Checkmarx One, OpenText Fortify (more governance and portfolio reporting), plus a dedicated DAST platform when needed.
- Practical tip: budget for people time (tuning + triage). A cheaper tool that produces noise can cost more overall.
Feature Depth vs Ease of Use
- If you need deep governance and formal processes, lean toward Veracode / Checkmarx / Fortify.
- If you want developer-native usability, lean toward GitHub Advanced Security, GitLab, Snyk, Sonar.
- If your biggest risk is runtime exposure, prioritize a DAST-first platform (Invicti, Rapid7, Burp EE).
Integrations & Scalability
- Source control alignment matters most:
- GitHub shops: GitHub Advanced Security pairs naturally with your SDLC.
- GitLab shops: GitLab Security minimizes integration overhead.
- For multi-tool enterprises, prioritize platforms with strong APIs, consistent export formats, and clean integration into ticketing and security reporting.
Security & Compliance Needs
- If you require self-hosting, strict segmentation, or data residency, confirm deployment options early (not all “cloud” tools fit regulated environments).
- Validate enterprise controls you’ll be asked about in security reviews: RBAC, audit logs, SSO, and administrative visibility. If these are vague or tier-locked, it can become a procurement blocker later.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What’s the difference between SAST and DAST?
SAST analyzes code (or build artifacts) to find insecure patterns early. DAST tests a running app by sending requests like an attacker. Most mature programs use both because they catch different classes of issues.
Do I need both SAST and DAST?
If you run customer-facing web apps or APIs, DAST adds important coverage for runtime behavior. If you build software regularly, SAST helps prevent vulnerabilities from shipping. Many teams start with one and add the other once workflows mature.
How are these tools typically priced?
Pricing models vary: per developer, per application, per scan target, or enterprise bundles. Exact pricing is often Not publicly stated and depends on scale and modules.
How long does implementation usually take?
A basic rollout can take days to weeks; an enterprise rollout can take weeks to months. The biggest variables are authentication setup for DAST, CI/CD standardization, and tuning rules/policies to reduce noise.
What are the most common mistakes when rolling out SAST/DAST?
Common issues include scanning everything without prioritization, failing to assign ownership, not configuring auth for DAST, and overwhelming developers with low-signal findings. Start with a pilot and define acceptance gates carefully.
Can these tools scan APIs effectively in 2026+ environments?
Many can, but “API scanning” varies widely. Confirm support for OpenAPI/GraphQL, auth flows, and whether the tool can maintain session state and tokens in realistic test scenarios.
How do I reduce false positives and alert fatigue?
Use baselines, incremental scans, severity thresholds, and ownership routing. Prefer tools that support deduplication and risk-based prioritization, and set policies that focus on exploitable/high-impact issues first.
Are cloud (SaaS) scanners safe for proprietary code?
It depends on your risk posture and contract terms. Evaluate data handling, encryption, access controls, and whether a hybrid scan model exists. If details aren’t clear, request documentation during procurement.
How do these platforms fit into CI/CD without slowing builds?
Use PR-scoped/incremental scanning, run deeper scans asynchronously, and gate only on high-confidence/high-severity issues. Also consider scheduled full scans nightly while keeping PR feedback fast.
What’s involved in switching from one platform to another?
Switching usually requires mapping severity and taxonomy, migrating tickets/workflows, re-tuning rules, and retraining developers. Plan for a period of overlap to avoid losing trend metrics and to validate parity.
What are good alternatives if I don’t need a full platform?
If you mainly need code hygiene, a lightweight static analysis tool and strong code review practices may be enough. If your risk is cloud misconfiguration, consider CSPM tools instead of (or before) SAST/DAST.
Conclusion
SAST/DAST platforms are no longer “nice-to-have” for teams shipping real products; they’re a practical way to reduce breach risk, enforce secure SDLC habits, and produce audit-ready evidence. In 2026+, the winners are the tools that integrate cleanly into developer workflows, prioritize what’s truly exploitable, and support hybrid deployment patterns as architectures spread across cloud and private environments.
There’s no single best tool for everyone. The right choice depends on your source control platform, application types (web/API), compliance requirements, and your team’s capacity to triage and remediate.
Next step: shortlist 2–3 tools, run a pilot on representative apps (including authenticated flows), validate CI/CD integrations and reporting needs, and confirm security controls and deployment constraints before committing.