Over the course of my 17 years in cybersecurity, including time as CISO at a fintech serving 125,000 merchants, I’ve gained experience with the evolution of interactive testing methods.
Through working on Proofs of Concept (PoCs) with several vendors, I’ve gained insights that have helped me compile the list below. It includes IAST modules from tools offering a variety of testing methods, with links to my rationale for each.
| Software For | ||
|---|---|---|
1. | Web app coverage | |
2. | Runtime code insights | |
3. | Accurate vulnerability detection | |
4. | Enterprise-grade testing | |
5. | Continuous code scanning | |
6. | Developer-friendly IAST | |
7. | Secure code analysis | |
8. | Deep application audit | |
9. | Mobile app scanning | |
10. | Mobile runtime protection | |
When choosing an IAST tool, users often consider the tools’:
- Focus on web apps or native mobile apps
- Integration with SIEM tools
- Deployment options, such as on-prem, cloud and hybrid
- The inclusion of DAST and/or SAST as an additional testing capability.
With these features in mind, see the IAST tools and their key features:
IAST tools comparison
| Vendor | Ratings with reviews* | Employees | Free trial |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invicti | 4.6 from 60+ reviews | 300+ | ✅ (for 15 days) |
| Synopsys Seeker | 4.3 from 100+ reviews | 10,000+ | ❌ |
| Acunetix by Invicti | 4.2 from 90+ reviews | 300+ | ❌ |
| HCL AppScan | 4.1 from 70+ reviews | 4,000+ | ✅ |
| Contrast Assess | 4.5 from 40+ reviews | 300+ | ✅ |
| Checkmarx One | 4.2 from 30+ reviews | 500+ | ❌ |
| OpenText Fortify On Demand | 3.9 from 20+ reviews | 20,000+ | ✅ |
| PT Application Inspector | <10 reviews | 200+ | ❌ |
| NowSecure | 4.6 from 20+ reviews | 100+ | ✅ |
| eShard esChecker | <10 reviews | 40+ | ❌ |
*All ratings are out of 5.
Ranking: Tools are ranked by focus and number of reviews, except sponsors. Sponsors have links and are listed at the top.
Vendor selection criteria:
- At least one review in a B2B review platform like G2. 1
- The number of employees as they serve as a proxy for the companies’ revenues. The company should have at least 30 employees.
IAST tools differentiating features
| Vendor | Integrations with SIEM tools | Number of supported coding languages* | Deployment options |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invicti | Splunk | 4+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| Synopsys Seeker | Splunk, IBM QRadar, ArcSight | 14+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| Acunetix by Invicti | Splunk | 4+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| HCL AppScan | IBM Security, QRadar | 30+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| Contrast Assess | Azure Sentinel, Datadog, Splunk, Sumo Logic | 16+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| Checkmarx One | Splunk | 20+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| OpenText Fortify On Demand | Splunk, ArcSight | 33+ | Cloud |
| PT Application Inspector | Splunk, native SIEM connectors | 14+ | On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid |
| NowSecure | Splunk, Elastic Stack, proprietary dashboard | 6+ | On-Prem, Cloud |
| eShard esChecker | Custom integrations via API / webhook support | 5+ | On-Prem, Cloud |
*To see each language in detail, refer to our table below.
IAST tools supported coding languages
| Software | Supported Coding Language |
|---|---|
| Invicti | .NET, PHP, Java, and Node.js |
| Synopsys Seeker | ASP.NET, C#, Clojure, ColdFusion, Go, Gosu, Groovy, Java, Node.js and more |
| Acutenix | JavaScript, PHP, JAVA, and .NET |
| HCL Software | SAP, ABAP,JavaScript Python, Node JS, C & C++ and more |
| Contrast Assess | Java, Ruby, Go, JS, .NET, Node JS, and more |
| Checkmarx One | Java, Python, C/C++, JavaScript, PHP, Go, Apex, |
| Open Text Fortify On Demand | ABAP/BSP, ActionScript, Apex, ASP.NET, C# (. NET), C/ C++, Classic ASP (with VBScript), COBOL, ColdFusion, and more |
| PT Application Inspector | Java, PHP, C#, Visual Basic .NET, JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Kotlin, Go, C/C++, Objective-C, Swift, SQL (T-SQL, PL/SQL, MySQL) |
| NowSecure | Java, Kotlin, Swift, Objective-C C/C++, JavaScript |
| eShard esChecker |
Top IAST tools examined
Invicti
Invicti AppSec emphasizes its “ZeroNoise” approach, aiming to minimize false positives through machine learning and expert-curated rules. It offers both static and dynamic analysis as an automated test runner.
Invicti, formerly known as Netsparker IAST, consolidates with existing workflows and addresses critical security areas like the OWASP Top 10 and compliance standards. 2 This combination of features and a wide range of programming languages, both web and server-side language compliance, makes Invicti a solution for organizations seeking to elevate their application security analysis without sacrificing development efficiency.
Invicti’s primary focus is providing comprehensive application security, covering various aspects:
- OWASP Top 10: Identifies and mitigates vulnerabilities listed in the OWASP Top 10, a well-known list of critical web application security risks.
- Compliance standards: Helps meet compliance requirements for regulations like PCI DSS, HIPAA, and GDPR.
- API security: Secures APIs alongside web applications for holistic security coverage.
Pros
- Invicti provides quick web application vulnerability scans with detailed reports and remediation guidance.
- The tool offers comprehensive scan configuration options, including the ability to inject scripts on a per-request basis.
- Invicti’s customer service is responsive and helpful, with quick issue resolution and proactive communication about billing cycles.
Cons
- Users report Invicti’s strict URL licensing can be problematic if a mistake is made during setup.
- There are concerns about Invicti’s compatibility with 2FA or MFA applications and its lack of flexibility in licensing for smaller enterprises.
- Some users have noticed high CPU and memory usage during use, leading to noticeable slowness during web application scans.
Point to consider for Acutenix and Invicti
- Invicti and Acunetix, both web application security offerings by Invicti Security, diverge in their target audiences and functionalities. While both utilize advanced vulnerability scanning technology with automated verification, Invicti caters to larger enterprises, emphasizing integration and automation. Conversely, Acunetix targets smaller organizations preferring a more hands-on approach to cybersecurity.
Choose Invicti for comprehensive web application scanning with multiple deployment options.
Contrast Assess by Contrast Security
Contrast Assess combined approach utilizing static, dynamic, and interactive analysis techniques in QA 3 It can scan code written in Java, Python, Node.js, and more.
Pros
- Contrast Assess simplifies understanding of vulnerabilities by providing comprehensive details about each vulnerability found in custom code and used libraries.
- The product offers real-time application testing, reducing false positives and combining SAST and DAST into one, while also providing supportive customer service.
- Contrast Assess is appreciated for its real-time protection, high detection accuracy, easy integration with dev ops tools, and scalability.
Cons
- Customers report the default scoring on libraries can be discouraging and the adjustment option for this is not straightforward.
- The security risk coverage and certain attack type coverage in the Protect module and Assess evaluation process is not comprehensive.
- Contrast Assess is reported to struggle with backward compatibility, integration with software applications and its interface is found to be cluttered.
Checkmarx One™
While Checkmarx One offers features like multi-language support, integrated analysis types, and streamlined developer workflow, it’s crucial to consider potential drawbacks like cost, complexity, and false positives. This balanced analysis allows you to decide if Checkmarx One aligns with your specific needs and avoid a one-sided approach. 4
Checkmarx One focuses on identifying and mitigating a wide range of application security vulnerabilities, including OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, injection flaws, broken authentication, and more. It also offers features like security risk scoring and prioritization to help developers focus on the most critical issues.
There is a demo video available that shows how detection works in Checkmarx:
Pros
- Checkmarx offers features such as source code scanning, SCA, license scanning, and is well-optimized for integration with CI/CD pipelines.
- The tool is appreciated for its ‘delta-scan’ feature, vulnerability detection in databases, and support for multiple languages.
- Users find the detailed vulnerability reports, easy UI, and accurate scans beneficial for maintaining code security and quality.
Cons
- Users noted Checkmarx’s dashboarding and user interface could be improved for better issue visibility and flexibility in widget creation.
- There are frequent false positives and duplicate positives reported, increasing the task of manual validation and disrupting development workflows.
- Customer service response times, cost of subscriptions, and complexity of integration with tools like Jenkins were also pointed out as areas needing improvement.
HCL AppScan
HCL AppScan is an enterprise-grade IAST tool designed to identify vulnerabilities in real-time during application runtime. It aims to provide coverage by integrating into the development pipeline, offering insights into security flaws and ensuring protection for complex, large-scale applications.
Pros
- HCL AppScan provides comprehensive security testing, easy integration into the SDLC, and user-friendly management for DevOps.
- It offers high scalability and restorable capacities, along with tracking of compliance violations and a quick and efficient support team.
- Users appreciate its advanced scanning capabilities, low false positives, and ease of installation and setup.
Cons
- HCL AppScan’s documentation can be complex for beginners, causing a steep learning curve and challenging implementation process.
- Several users report issues with the license manager, the use of outdated TLS 1.0, and application scanning behind Azure with MFA.
- Despite its accuracy, some users note occurrence of false positives, difficulty in handling complex scans, and suboptimal reporting capabilities.
NowSecure
NowSecure is a specialized mobile application security testing platform that offers automated assessments for iOS and Android apps. It claims to perform over 600 security, privacy, and compliance tests, including static, dynamic, and interactive analyses, on real devices. NowSecure is particularly effective for organizations aiming to secure both custom-developed and third-party mobile applications.
Pros
- NowSecure’s detailed reports are appreciated for their ability to comprehensively cover Static Application Security Testing (SAST) needs
- Users find the integration of NowSecure in their build and release cycles to be beneficial in improving mobile app security
- The customer support provided by NowSecure is highly valued for its responsiveness and helpfulness.
Cons
- Users noted challenges with NowSecure’s integrations and lengthy scan times.
- Some found the user interface non-intuitive and the licensing costs high.
- Others mentioned issues with app configuration, report overload, and limitations in customization.
What is an IAST tool?
An IAST (Interactive Application Security Testing) tool is a security solution that analyzes an application’s security in real-time during its runtime. It combines elements of both static and dynamic analysis by monitoring the application’s behavior as it operates, allowing it to detect vulnerabilities such as code flaws, misconfigurations, and other security risks.
IAST tools typically work by integrating directly into the application during testing or in a development environment. They track and analyze interactions between the app’s code and its data, offering detailed feedback and insights that help developers and security teams identify and fix security issues early in the development lifecycle. This approach ensures more accurate and context-aware vulnerability detection compared to traditional methods.
What makes IAST necessary?
IAST empowers developers by shifting security testing left in the SDLC, identifying vulnerabilities during the test/QA stage, and reducing remediation costs and delays. This aims to put developers in control and allows for continuous security testing throughout the software development life cycle by integrating with CI/CD pipelines.
Unlike other application testing tools, IAST provides immediate vulnerability reports after code changes, enabling developers to identify and fix vulnerabilities earlier in development. This integration, ease of use, and scalability make IAST a preferable option for web application development teams and DevOps environments to monitor vulnerabilities in the development cycle.
Offerings and limitations of IAST tools compared
| SAST | DAST | IAST | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ideal For | -Complex applications with extensive and diverse codebases. -Early-stage development and continuous integration environments | -Web applications, APIs, and services. -Final stages of development, pre-release, and post-deployment security assessments | -Early vulnerability detection. -Lower false positive rate |
| Limitations | -False positives and negatives. -Detecting runtime and environment specific issues. -Identifying issues in third-party libraries and components | -Vulnerabilities that are detectable at runtime. -Requires a fully functional and deployed application. -Static code issues and deeply embedded vulnerabilities | -Initial setup and configuration |
Benefits
- Insights: IAST tools can identify real-time insights, enable early vulnerability detection (during testing/QA) and can detect up to 30% more vulnerabilities than traditional SAST methods, according to a 2024 Gartner study. 5
- False positivity reduction: By leveraging application logic and context Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) provides accurate results with low false positives (compared to DAST and SAST). Most IAST tools’ automated testing capabilities generate up to 70% reduction, observed in a 2023 Forrester report. 6
Weaknesses
- Monitoring: One downside of IAST tools is that they are limited to identifying the vulnerabilities in the functional testing environment; they can not monitor security issues in areas of missing code coverage.
- Customizability: An important consideration is to maintain the balance between pre-configured rules and human tester control since the selected tool might have limitations in customizability.
How to complement IAST tools?
IAST tools can be complemented with DAST tools or SAST tools. For those starting their application security journey or working at SMEs, these can also be good starting points:
SAST vs. DAST vs. IAST tools
| Feature | SAST* | DAST** | IAST*** |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | -Source code analysis, -Byte code or binary code, -Identifies security vulnerabilities without executing the code. | -Testing an application from the outside in its running state. -Used to find vulnerabilities that an attacker could exploit. | -Combines elements of both static and dynamic analysis. -Implemented as agents within the test environment to observe application behavior and report issues. |
| Approach – Testing Environment | -White-box testing approach, -Internal structure and design of the application are known and analyzed. | -Black-box testing approach. -Production-like staging environment stimulates external attacks. | -White-box testing approach. -Used in development, QA, or staging environments, -Application behavior observation. |
| Detection Method | -Detects security breaches, -Ensures compliance with security standards, -Analyzing source code before deployment using static analysis. | -Simulated attacks on a running application, -Penetration testing with automated tools. | -Application behavior and data flow in real-time monitoring, -Knowledge of the code structure from static analysis and dynamic testing identify vulnerabilities. |
| Detection of Vulnerabilities | -Syntax and semantic errors, -Insecure coding patterns, -Buffer overflows, -Injection flaws, -Cross-site scripting (XSS), -Improper error handling in the coding stage. | -Vulnerabilities that can be detected from outside the application, -SQL injection, -Cross-site scripting (XSS), -Vulnerabilities that an attacker could exploit after deployment. | -Runtime issues (like DAST), -Issues in the source code (like SAST). |
| Implementation | -Early in the development lifecycle, -During coding and integration phases. | -Later in the development cycle, -During testing phases after deployment in a staging or similar environment. -Requires no access to the source code. | -Requires integration with the application runtime environment. |
| Ease of Use | -Deployed in early-stage development, -Continuous Integration (CI) pipeline. | -Easier to set up and requires less configuration, -No need to access source code. | -Observing the application behavior in run-time, -Minimizes false positives. |
*SAST: Static Application Security Testing
**DAST: Dynamic Application Security Testing
***IAST: Interactive Application Security Testing
External Links
- 1. Best Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) Software: User Reviews from August 2025.
- 2. OWASP Top Ten | OWASP Foundation.
- 3. Contrast Assess | Application Code Security | Contrast.
- 4. Reducing Friction in AppSec Program Adoption: How Checkmarx One Can Help . Checkmarx
- 5. Best Application Security Testing Reviews 2025 | Gartner Peer Insights.
- 6. Application Security - Forrester. Forrester
Comments
Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.