Top 10 Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP): Features, Pros, Cons & Comparison

Top Tools

Posted on February 21, 2026 | by rajeshkumar

Introduction (100–200 words)

Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) is a security approach where protection is built into the running application (typically via an agent, library, or SDK) so the app can detect and block attacks from the inside—using real execution context like routes, methods, user sessions, and data flows. Unlike perimeter-only defenses, RASP aims to stop exploits at the point of execution, even when traffic looks “normal” to a WAF or API gateway.

RASP matters more in 2026+ because modern stacks are noisier and faster: microservices, APIs, third‑party dependencies, AI-assisted code, and frequent releases make it easier for vulnerabilities to ship—and harder to patch instantly. RASP can buy time by reducing exploitability while teams fix root causes.

Real-world use cases include:

Blocking injection attempts (SQLi, command injection) with in-app context
Preventing account takeover paths (credential stuffing patterns, session abuse signals)
Shielding legacy apps that can’t be refactored quickly
Protecting high-risk endpoints (auth, payments, admin) during patch windows
Mobile app self-defense against tampering, hooking, and runtime instrumentation

What buyers should evaluate:

Coverage (web vs API vs mobile; languages/frameworks)
Detection + blocking quality (precision/recall, tunability)
Performance overhead and stability in production
Visibility (attack traces, request context, root-cause mapping)
DevSecOps workflow fit (CI/CD, ticketing, remediation hints)
Policy management (granular rules, environment-based controls)
Compatibility (Kubernetes, serverless, service mesh, APM)
Data handling and privacy controls (PII masking, retention)
Enterprise readiness (RBAC, audit logs, SSO)
Total cost (licensing model, agent rollout effort)

Best for: security teams and platform teams running internet-exposed apps/APIs; fintech, SaaS, healthcare, marketplaces; orgs that need runtime protection + fast feedback for developers; mid-market to enterprise, plus mobile-first companies needing anti-tamper defenses.
Not ideal for: static marketing sites, low-risk internal tools, or teams that already have strong compensating controls and can patch instantly. If your primary need is perimeter filtering, a WAAP/WAF or API gateway security may be a better first step.

Key Trends in Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) for 2026 and Beyond

Convergence with observability: RASP capabilities increasingly ship inside APM/agent ecosystems to reuse tracing context and reduce tool sprawl.
RASP + IAST pairing: runtime self-protection is being packaged with interactive testing to reduce false positives and connect attacks to vulnerable code paths.
API-first protection: more runtime policies are expressed around API schemas, auth flows, and business logic abuse, not just classic OWASP injection categories.
Kubernetes-native rollouts: agents and sidecar patterns are being operationalized with GitOps, automated canaries, and per-namespace policy.
Serverless and ephemeral compute challenges: the market is moving toward lower-friction instrumentation that works with short-lived functions and container bursts.
AI-assisted triage and remediation: products are adding “why this was blocked,” likely vulnerable function, and suggested fixes—sometimes generating tickets with contextual evidence.
Data minimization and privacy-by-design: stronger expectations for PII masking, configurable retention, and regional processing for regulated environments.
Performance budgets become explicit: buyers increasingly demand measurable overhead profiles, safe-mode toggles, and automatic rollback if latency spikes.
Mobile RASP maturity: more mobile pipelines integrate anti-tamper, anti-hooking, and runtime integrity checks as standard for fintech and identity-sensitive apps.
Interoperability with security platforms: better integration with SIEM/SOAR, cloud security posture, and incident response workflows—because runtime findings must trigger action.

How We Selected These Tools (Methodology)

Prioritized vendors and projects with clear market recognition for RASP or RASP-like runtime protection (including mobile RASP).
Looked for runtime blocking/mitigation capabilities (not only scanning) and meaningful production visibility.
Considered language/platform coverage (JVM, .NET, Node.js, etc.) and/or mobile (iOS/Android) where relevant.
Evaluated operational fit: rollout approach, policy controls, environment management, and how teams tune detections.
Weighed ecosystem readiness: integrations with CI/CD, ticketing, SIEM, and common cloud/Kubernetes patterns.
Considered performance and reliability signals (agent stability expectations, safe deploy patterns, and enterprise production suitability).
Included a balanced mix of enterprise platforms and mobile-focused RASP offerings to reflect how the category is used in 2026+.
Avoided tools that are purely WAF/WAAP, purely SAST/DAST, or generic vulnerability management without runtime protection.

Top 10 Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) Tools

#1 — Contrast Security Protect

Short description (2–3 lines): Contrast Protect is a RASP-focused agent that embeds into applications to detect and block attacks in real time. It’s typically used by teams that want runtime protection plus developer-relevant context to speed remediation.

Key Features

In-app attack detection and blocking using execution context
Policy-based controls with environment scoping (e.g., dev/stage/prod)
Detailed attack traces that map to code paths and inputs
Support for common enterprise application stacks (varies by language/runtime)
Operational controls to tune sensitivity and reduce false positives
Dashboards for security teams and workflow support for developers
Often paired with broader application security workflows (depending on packaging)

Pros

Strong alignment with “protect now, fix fast” programs
High-quality context can reduce triage time versus perimeter-only tools
Useful for patch windows and legacy systems that can’t be updated quickly

Cons

Requires agent rollout and ongoing tuning in production
Coverage depends on supported languages/frameworks in your stack
Can add complexity when combined with existing APM and gateway controls

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Linux / Windows (as applicable by runtime)
Cloud / Hybrid (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HIPAA: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Common patterns include integrating runtime findings into engineering workflows and security operations, plus aligning with CI/CD and incident response.

CI/CD systems (Varies)
Ticketing and chat tools (Varies)
SIEM/SOAR platforms (Varies)
APIs/webhooks (Not publicly stated)
Cloud and Kubernetes environments (Varies)

Support & Community

Enterprise-oriented documentation and support are typical for this class of vendor. Specific tiers and community depth are Not publicly stated.

#2 — Imperva RASP (Prevoty heritage)

Short description (2–3 lines): Imperva has offered RASP capabilities historically through technology associated with Prevoty. It’s generally positioned for organizations seeking runtime exploit protection integrated into a broader application security portfolio.

Key Features

Runtime detection and blocking for application-layer attacks
Focus on reducing exploitability during vulnerability exposure windows
Centralized policy management for protected apps (varies by offering)
Visibility into suspicious requests with application context
Deployment patterns designed for production environments
Potential alignment with broader Imperva app security controls (portfolio dependent)

Pros

Can fit organizations standardizing on a single security vendor portfolio
Helpful as a compensating control while patching and remediation catch up
Central management is useful across many apps

Cons

Product packaging and availability can vary by region and contract
Implementation may require coordination across app and security teams
Clarity on supported runtimes/features may require vendor confirmation

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Linux / Windows (Varies / N/A)
Cloud / Hybrid (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often used alongside enterprise security operations tooling and application delivery controls.

SIEM/SOAR (Varies)
Ticketing systems (Varies)
CI/CD pipelines (Varies)
Log management platforms (Varies)
APIs/webhooks (Not publicly stated)

Support & Community

Commercial enterprise support is expected; specific SLAs, onboarding, and community details are Not publicly stated.

#3 — OpenText Fortify Runtime Application Protector (RASP)

Short description (2–3 lines): Fortify’s runtime protection offering (often referenced as Fortify Runtime Application Protector) targets organizations that want RASP-style mitigation as part of an application security program anchored around Fortify.

Key Features

Runtime protection controls designed to mitigate exploitation
Centralized management aligned with application security governance
Production-focused enforcement policies (varies by stack)
Reporting intended for security and compliance stakeholders
Potential synergy with broader Fortify application security workflows
Support for enterprise deployment patterns (staged rollouts, policies)

Pros

Fits enterprises already invested in Fortify governance and AppSec processes
Central visibility helps when protecting large app portfolios
Useful for regulated environments that need documented controls

Cons

Integration and rollout can be heavier than developer-first tools
Runtime support may not cover every modern framework equally
Policy tuning may require specialized expertise

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Windows / Linux (Varies / N/A)
Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Best suited for orgs that want runtime controls to connect with their existing AppSec governance.

Fortify ecosystem tooling (Varies)
CI/CD integrations (Varies)
SIEM/log aggregation (Varies)
Ticketing (Varies)
APIs/webhooks (Not publicly stated)

Support & Community

Enterprise documentation and support are typical; specific support tiers are Not publicly stated.

#4 — Dynatrace Application Security (RASP-style runtime protection)

Short description (2–3 lines): Dynatrace’s application security capabilities leverage its agent/telemetry footprint to detect runtime risks and attacks with strong operational context. It’s a fit for orgs that want security signals embedded into observability workflows.

Key Features

Runtime visibility into application behavior using tracing/telemetry context
Detection of suspicious activity with service-level and request-level detail
Centralized policies aligned with environments and services
Helps connect findings to impacted services and deployments
Works well in microservices/Kubernetes environments (agent-based)
Unified views for SRE + security collaboration
Supports operational guardrails (e.g., safe rollouts, environment targeting)

Pros

Strong context for triage thanks to deep observability data
Good fit for platform teams standardizing on one agent footprint
Helps security teams speak the same language as SRE/engineering

Cons

“Blocking” capabilities and depth can vary by configuration and product scope
Requires agent rollout and careful performance governance
Licensing can be complex depending on how much platform you adopt

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Linux / Windows (Varies by agent/runtime)
Cloud / Hybrid (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Dynatrace commonly integrates with engineering operations toolchains, incident response, and enterprise logging.

Kubernetes and cloud platforms (Varies)
ITSM/ticketing (Varies)
SIEM/log management (Varies)
ChatOps/incident tooling (Varies)
APIs/webhooks (Not publicly stated)

Support & Community

Generally strong enterprise enablement; specifics (SLAs, community programs) are Not publicly stated.

#5 — Datadog Application Security Management (ASM) (RASP-style)

Short description (2–3 lines): Datadog ASM extends Datadog’s agent approach into application-layer security signals and protections. It’s commonly chosen by teams that already use Datadog and want security coverage with minimal additional operational overhead.

Key Features

Runtime threat detection and application-layer security analytics
Agent-based instrumentation aligned with APM and tracing context
Policy controls to reduce noise and tune enforcement
Visibility into attack patterns correlated with services and releases
Good fit for cloud-native stacks with rapid deploy cycles
Integrations with incident and monitoring workflows
Centralized management across environments

Pros

Operationally convenient for teams standardized on Datadog
Strong correlation between security signals and runtime performance context
Helps unify SecOps and SRE workflows

Cons

Depth of “RASP-style” blocking may not match dedicated RASP-only tools
Requires thoughtful tuning to avoid alert fatigue
Cost/value depends on how broadly you deploy Datadog agents

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Linux / Windows (Varies by runtime/agent)
Cloud (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Designed to plug into the broader monitoring and incident ecosystem typical of modern DevOps teams.

CI/CD annotations and release tracking (Varies)
SIEM/log pipelines (Varies)
Incident management (Varies)
Ticketing/chat tools (Varies)
APIs/webhooks (Not publicly stated)

Support & Community

Typically strong documentation and community presence for the overall platform; ASM-specific support details are Not publicly stated.

#6 — New Relic Application Security (RASP-style)

Short description (2–3 lines): New Relic’s security capabilities build on its observability agents to surface runtime risks and suspicious behaviors. It’s a fit for teams that want security insights in the same place they monitor performance and reliability.

Key Features

Runtime visibility leveraging APM instrumentation and traces
Security findings correlated with services, endpoints, and deployments
Workflow support to route issues to engineering teams
Environment-level controls and alerting
Useful for microservices and API-heavy architectures
Helps prioritize what’s exploitable based on runtime context
Central dashboards for cross-team collaboration

Pros

Good for organizations that want one operational console for DevOps + security
Strong triage context (service maps, traces, error correlation)
Can reduce “unknown unknowns” in large microservice estates

Cons

RASP-style blocking/enforcement depth may vary by configuration and scope
Requires agent adoption and governance across many services
May not cover specialized mobile anti-tamper requirements

Platforms / Deployment

Web / Linux / Windows (Varies by agent/runtime)
Cloud (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

New Relic is commonly integrated into incident response and engineering workflows.

Alerting/incident tools (Varies)
Ticketing systems (Varies)
Log management and SIEM pipelines (Varies)
CI/CD release markers (Varies)
APIs/webhooks (Not publicly stated)

Support & Community

Broad community around observability; security-feature enablement and tiers are Varies / Not publicly stated.

#7 — Guardsquare DexGuard (Mobile RASP)

Short description (2–3 lines): DexGuard focuses on Android application protection, commonly used for mobile RASP-style defenses such as anti-tamper, obfuscation, and runtime detection. It’s typically adopted by fintech, gaming, and apps facing reverse engineering or fraud.

Key Features

Anti-tamper protections for Android applications
Obfuscation and code hardening to raise reverse-engineering cost
Runtime checks for hooking/instrumentation indicators (capabilities vary)
Protection against repackaging and certain modification techniques
Build pipeline integration (Gradle/CI patterns vary)
Policy/configuration options to balance security vs app compatibility
Reporting/visibility options (Varies / Not publicly stated)

Pros

Strong fit for Android apps exposed to cloning, modding, or fraud tooling
Integrates into mobile build processes rather than runtime infrastructure
Helps protect IP and sensitive client-side logic

Cons

Mobile RASP can introduce compatibility testing workload across devices/OS versions
Not a replacement for server-side controls and API security
Visibility/telemetry depth depends on implementation choices

Platforms / Deployment

Android
Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid: Varies / N/A (often build-time integration)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Mobile protection tools typically integrate with CI/CD and mobile release processes rather than SIEM out of the box.

CI/CD (Varies)
Mobile build tooling (Varies)
App distribution workflows (Varies)
Fraud/telemetry stacks (Varies)
APIs/webhooks: Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Documentation is generally developer-focused for mobile teams; enterprise support details are Not publicly stated.

#8 — Appdome (Mobile App Defense / RASP-style)

Short description (2–3 lines): Appdome provides a mobile app security platform that can add protections (including runtime self-defense patterns) without requiring deep in-house security engineering. It’s often used by teams that want faster rollout across iOS and Android.

Key Features

Mobile app protections that can include anti-tamper and runtime defense patterns
iOS and Android coverage with configuration-driven security
Build and release workflow alignment (CI/CD-friendly approach)
Modular protection options (capabilities vary by plan)
Support for common mobile threat scenarios (e.g., tampering, instrumentation)
Policy consistency across multiple apps/brands
Operational controls to adjust protections as issues are found

Pros

Faster time-to-implementation than fully custom mobile hardening
Works well for teams supporting multiple mobile apps and frequent releases
Helps standardize mobile security controls across squads

Cons

Some teams may prefer more transparent, code-level control
Mobile protections still require QA for device/OS compatibility
Telemetry and integration depth can vary by configuration

Platforms / Deployment

iOS / Android
Cloud (Varies / N/A)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Typically aligns with mobile DevOps pipelines and enterprise mobility workflows.

CI/CD systems (Varies)
Mobile build tooling (Varies)
MDM/MAM processes (Varies)
Issue trackers (Varies)
APIs/webhooks: Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Onboarding tends to be process-driven; support tiers and community details are Not publicly stated.

#9 — Digital.ai Application Protection (Arxan) (Mobile RASP)

Short description (2–3 lines): Digital.ai’s Application Protection (historically associated with Arxan) focuses on hardening mobile apps against tampering, reverse engineering, and runtime attacks. It’s commonly used in high-risk industries where client-side integrity is critical.

Key Features

Mobile app hardening and anti-tamper protections
Runtime checks that can detect certain instrumentation/modification attempts
Protection aimed at raising attacker cost for reverse engineering
Support for enterprise governance and policy consistency (Varies)
Build pipeline integration for repeatable releases
Controls designed for sensitive apps (finance, identity, regulated)
Reporting/telemetry capabilities (Varies / Not publicly stated)

Pros

Strong fit for threat models involving repackaging, IP theft, and fraud
Helps protect sensitive client-side flows (where appropriate)
Designed for enterprise deployment and governance patterns

Cons

Mobile hardening can increase build/release complexity
Requires careful QA and rollout testing across devices
Not a substitute for server-side authorization and API protections

Platforms / Deployment

iOS / Android (Varies / N/A)
Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid: Varies / N/A

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Enterprise mobile security tools often integrate with release management and, sometimes, fraud monitoring programs.

CI/CD and build pipelines (Varies)
Mobile development toolchains (Varies)
Enterprise governance processes (Varies)
Fraud analytics stacks (Varies)
APIs/webhooks: Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Enterprise support is common; community signals are Varies / Not publicly stated.

#10 — Promon Shield (Mobile RASP)

Short description (2–3 lines): Promon Shield is a mobile application protection solution focused on runtime integrity and anti-tampering defenses. It’s typically adopted by organizations facing real-world mobile threats like hooking frameworks, malware overlays, or app repackaging.

Key Features

Runtime protections focused on integrity and anti-tampering (capabilities vary)
Detection of suspicious runtime conditions (e.g., modification indicators)
Hardening to complicate reverse engineering and patching
Support for protecting sensitive user journeys (login, payments, identity)
Build/release integration aligned with mobile CI/CD
Policy configuration to tune protections
Operational guidance for rollout and compatibility testing

Pros

Strong fit for mobile-first brands exposed to fraud and device-level threats
Adds a defensive layer on the client where traditional server tools can’t reach
Works well as part of a broader mobile threat model

Cons

Mobile RASP requires disciplined QA to avoid breaking edge devices
Not a replacement for backend security and secure API design
Telemetry depth and integration options can vary

Platforms / Deployment

iOS / Android
Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid: Varies / N/A

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
MFA: Not publicly stated
Encryption: Not publicly stated
Audit logs: Not publicly stated
RBAC: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Common integrations are centered on mobile build/release and incident workflows.

CI/CD pipelines (Varies)
Mobile build systems (Varies)
Issue tracking (Varies)
Security monitoring workflows (Varies)
APIs/webhooks: Not publicly stated

Support & Community

Implementation is typically guided by vendor support; documentation/community details are Not publicly stated.

Comparison Table (Top 10)

Tool Name	Best For	Platform(s) Supported	Deployment (Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid)	Standout Feature	Public Rating
Contrast Security Protect	Dedicated RASP for web apps with strong attack-to-code context	Web (Varies), Linux/Windows	Cloud/Hybrid (Varies)	In-app blocking with developer-relevant traces	N/A
Imperva RASP (Prevoty heritage)	Enterprises aligning runtime protection with broader app security portfolio	Web (Varies)	Cloud/Hybrid (Varies)	Portfolio fit + runtime mitigation approach	N/A
OpenText Fortify Runtime Application Protector	Fortify-centric AppSec programs needing runtime mitigation	Web (Varies), Windows/Linux	Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid (Varies)	Governance-aligned runtime protection	N/A
Dynatrace Application Security	Observability-led security programs, microservices/Kubernetes	Web (Varies), Linux/Windows	Cloud/Hybrid (Varies)	Security triage powered by deep telemetry context	N/A
Datadog ASM	Datadog-standardized orgs wanting security + APM correlation	Web (Varies), Linux/Windows	Cloud (Varies)	Unified ops + security workflows via agent footprint	N/A
New Relic Application Security	Teams that want runtime security signals inside APM workflows	Web (Varies), Linux/Windows	Cloud (Varies)	Security findings tied to services and releases	N/A
Guardsquare DexGuard	Android apps needing anti-tamper and hardening	Android	Varies / N/A	Android-focused code hardening and protections	N/A
Appdome	Fast rollout of mobile protections across iOS/Android	iOS, Android	Cloud (Varies)	Configuration-driven mobile defense at scale	N/A
Digital.ai Application Protection (Arxan)	High-risk mobile apps needing enterprise-grade hardening	iOS, Android (Varies)	Varies / N/A	Mobile anti-tamper + reverse engineering resistance	N/A
Promon Shield	Mobile-first orgs facing fraud/tampering threats	iOS, Android	Varies / N/A	Runtime integrity and anti-tampering focus	N/A

Evaluation & Scoring of Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP)

Weights:

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)
Contrast Security Protect	9	7	7	7	7	7	6	7.45
Imperva RASP	7	6	7	7	7	7	6	6.70
OpenText Fortify Runtime Application Protector	7	5	6	7	7	7	6	6.35
Dynatrace Application Security	7	7	8	7	8	7	6	7.15
Datadog ASM	7	8	8	7	8	7	6	7.25
New Relic Application Security	6	8	7	7	7	7	7	6.95
Guardsquare DexGuard	7	6	5	6	7	6	6	6.25
Appdome	7	8	6	6	7	6	6	6.70
Digital.ai Application Protection (Arxan)	8	6	5	6	7	6	5	6.45
Promon Shield	8	6	5	6	7	6	5	6.45

How to interpret these scores:

This is a comparative model to help shortlist, not an objective benchmark.
A higher score often reflects broader coverage or easier rollout, not “more secure” in every threat model.
Mobile RASP tools score differently because their “core features” are strong, but ecosystems/integrations can be narrower than server-side platforms.
Your actual results will depend on supported runtimes, tuning effort, and how you operationalize blocking vs monitoring.

Which Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) Tool Is Right for You?

Solo / Freelancer

If you’re a solo developer, full RASP is often overkill unless you’re operating a high-risk app (payments, identity, regulated data).

Prefer managed edge controls first (WAF/WAAP, rate limiting) and rapid patching.
If you already use an APM platform, consider its RASP-style security features for lightweight coverage.
Mobile developers shipping high-risk consumer apps may benefit from Appdome-style faster rollout, but test carefully.

SMB

SMBs typically need simple rollout, low overhead, and clear outcomes.

If you already run Datadog or New Relic, start with Datadog ASM or New Relic Application Security to reduce operational friction.
If you have frequent vulnerability exposure and need stronger in-app blocking, Contrast Protect is a common dedicated RASP-style choice (confirm language support).
For mobile-heavy SMBs facing fraud or cloning, start with Appdome (speed) or Promon Shield (integrity-focused), depending on your threat model.

Mid-Market

Mid-market teams often need balance: enterprise controls without enterprise rollout pain.

For cloud-native stacks, Datadog ASM or Dynatrace Application Security can work well if you want security + ops correlation in one place.
For a more “security-first” runtime posture, Contrast Protect can be a strong fit if you’re ready to invest in tuning and policies.
If mobile is a core channel, consider pairing server-side protection with Guardsquare DexGuard (Android hardening) plus an iOS/Android platform option.

Enterprise

Enterprises usually prioritize governance, multi-app consistency, and SOC workflows.

If you want a dedicated RASP posture with app-context blocking, Contrast Protect is often shortlisted.
If you’re consolidating around a larger security vendor footprint, Imperva RASP may align better organizationally (confirm current packaging and coverage).
If your AppSec governance is Fortify-centered, OpenText Fortify Runtime Application Protector can make sense as part of a unified program.
For SRE-led enterprises standardizing on observability, Dynatrace is a pragmatic path to operationalize runtime security signals at scale.

Budget vs Premium

Budget-sensitive: favor RASP-style features inside existing platforms (Datadog/New Relic/Dynatrace) to minimize new vendor cost and rollout time.
Premium/security-first: dedicated RASP can offer deeper app-context blocking and more targeted AppSec workflows—but expect higher rollout and tuning investment.

Feature Depth vs Ease of Use

Easier adoption: observability-led options typically win on rollout speed (agent reuse, familiar UI).
Deeper in-app enforcement: dedicated RASP offerings may offer finer-grained controls, but can require more tuning and organizational readiness.

Integrations & Scalability

If your incident workflow depends on SIEM/SOAR and structured evidence, prioritize tools that can reliably export events and context (often enterprise-focused platforms).
For Kubernetes-heavy environments, ensure the tool supports repeatable agent lifecycle management (GitOps, canaries, automated rollback).

Security & Compliance Needs

If you need SSO/RBAC/audit logs and formal compliance posture, validate enterprise identity and logging capabilities early—don’t assume they exist.
For regulated workloads, confirm data handling: PII masking, retention, and regional controls.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What’s the difference between RASP and a WAF?

A WAF filters traffic at the edge using request patterns, while RASP runs inside the application and uses execution context. RASP can sometimes detect attacks that look “normal” at the perimeter, but requires in-app instrumentation.

Does RASP replace secure coding and patching?

No. RASP is best treated as a compensating control that reduces exploitability and buys time. You still need remediation, dependency updates, and secure SDLC practices.

How is RASP typically licensed?

Pricing models vary: per application, per host/container, per agent, or bundled within an observability/security platform. Specific pricing is often Not publicly stated and depends on scale and contracts.

What’s the typical implementation timeline?

For smaller environments, rollout can be days to weeks. For enterprises with many services, expect weeks to months due to tuning, performance validation, and release governance.

Will RASP slow down my application?

It can add overhead. The impact depends on language/runtime, instrumentation depth, traffic volume, and blocking rules. Plan performance testing and use staged rollouts.

What are common mistakes when adopting RASP?

Common pitfalls include enabling blocking immediately without baselining, rolling out everywhere at once, not defining ownership (SecOps vs platform vs app teams), and failing to plan for tuning and exception handling.

Can RASP protect APIs and microservices?

Often yes, but effectiveness depends on how the tool instruments services and understands API routes/auth flows. In 2026+ you should validate coverage for microservices, async patterns, and service-to-service calls.

How does RASP fit with Kubernetes and service mesh?

RASP is usually agent-based inside the application runtime, so it complements (not replaces) service mesh controls. Validate how you’ll manage agents via Helm/GitOps and how policies map to namespaces/environments.

What about serverless (functions) and short-lived workloads?

Serverless can be challenging due to cold starts and ephemeral lifecycles. Some platforms support lighter instrumentation; others may be limited. Confirm compatibility with your runtime and deployment model.

How do mobile RASP tools differ from server-side RASP?

Mobile RASP focuses on client integrity: anti-tamper, anti-hooking, reverse engineering resistance, and runtime environment checks. Server-side RASP focuses on blocking exploitation in the backend. Many orgs need both.

How hard is it to switch RASP tools later?

Switching can be non-trivial due to agents/SDKs, policy definitions, and changes in telemetry workflows. Minimize lock-in by documenting policies, keeping exception rationale, and using standard event pipelines where possible.

What are alternatives if I don’t want in-app agents?

Alternatives include WAAP/WAF + API security, robust auth/authorization controls, rate limiting, dependency scanning with rapid patching, and runtime threat detection at infrastructure layers. These can be effective but may lack in-app execution context.

Conclusion

RASP remains a practical category when you need real-time protection at the point of execution, especially for high-risk apps, legacy systems, and fast-moving release cycles. In 2026+, the biggest shift is how often RASP is delivered as RASP-style capabilities inside observability and security platforms, plus the growing importance of mobile RASP for client-side integrity and fraud resistance.

The “best” tool depends on your runtime (web vs mobile), rollout constraints, appetite for tuning, and whether you want a dedicated AppSec tool or consolidated platform approach. Next step: shortlist 2–3 options, run a production-like pilot (including performance tests), and validate integrations, policy management, and security/compliance requirements before scaling.