We performed a comparison between CAST Highlight and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of CAST Highlight are automation and speed."
"The most valuable features of the CAST Highlight are the interface and there are three notations that are very simple to understand and communicate with."
"The way it tells you which codebase is more ready for the cloud and which codebase is less ready is very valuable. It works seamlessly with most languages."
"It offers good performance."
"CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"Static Scanning is the most valuable feature of Veracode."
"The policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is pretty comprehensive, especially around PCI. If you do the static analysis, the dynamic analysis, and then a manual penetration test, it aggregates all of these results into one report. And then they create a PCI-specific report around it which helps to illustrate how the application adheres to different standards."
"The most valuable feature is the dynamic application security testing."
"The installation was straightforward."
"The best feature is definitely the detailed reports. It provides code-related queries in the order of high, medium, and low depending on what we need to do. Veracode is user-friendly as well."
"The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end."
"The solution is stable. we've never had any issues surrounding its stability."
"Provides the ability to understand the black zones in our system."
"There's a bit of a learning curve at the outset."
"CAST Highlight could improve to allow us to comment and do a deep analysis by ourselves."
"The ease of configuration and customization could be improved in CAST Highlight."
"Its price should be better. It is a pretty costly tool. They have two products: CAST Highlight and CAST AIP. I would expect CAST Highlight to have the Help dashboard and the Engineering dashboard. These dashboards are currently a part of CAST AIP, and if these are made available in CAST Highlight, customers won't have to use two different products all the time."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
"I would ask Veracode to be a lot more engaged with the customer and set up live sessions where they force the customer to engage with Veracode's technical team. Veracode could show them a repo, how they should do things, this is what these results mean, here is a dashboard, here's the interpretation, here's where you find the results."
"The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report."
"It's problematic if you want to integrate it with your pipelines because the documentation is not so well written and it's full of typos. It is not presented in a structured way. It does not say, "If you want to achieve this particular thing, you have to do steps 1, 2, and 3." Instead, it contains bits of information in different parts, and you have to read everything and then understand the big picture."
"The dynamic scanning feature works, but it doesn't work properly for some of our applications. It doesn't allow us to skip. They claim that we can do this, but it doesn't work when we're scanning the applications in real-time."
"There are certain shortcomings in Veracode's static analysis engine. I would improve Veracode's static analysis engine to make it capable of identifying vulnerabilities with low false positives."
"I would also like to see some improvement in the speed. That is really the only complaint, but in all reality we have a massive Java application that needs to be scanned. Our developers are saying, "It takes 72 hours to scan it." That is probably the nature of the beast, and I'm actually pretty accepting of that time frame, but since it's a complaint that I get, faster is always better. I don't necessarily think that the speed is bad as it is, just that faster would be better."
"I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."
CAST Highlight is ranked 10th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 5 reviews while Veracode is ranked 3rd in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 194 reviews. CAST Highlight is rated 7.8, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CAST Highlight writes "Easy to set up with optimized and automated insights". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". CAST Highlight is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Checkmarx One, Black Duck and GitLab, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our CAST Highlight vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) vendors.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
