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."
"CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"It offers good performance."
"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 has provided what we were looking for in such an application, meaning static application security testing functionality. That was what we were interested in."
"The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months."
"Provides consistent evaluation and results without huge fluctuations in false positives or negatives."
"Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools."
"I like Veracode's integration with our CI/CD. It automatically scans our code when we do the build. It can also detect any security flaws in our third-party libraries. Veracode is good at pinpointing the sections of code that have vulnerabilities."
"One of the best things they offer is the scalability. The fact that you can work with it through the cloud means that if you have unintegrated business units, you don't have to worry about having a solution on-prem and having the network connection; you don't have to worry about giving up source code, you are just sending your binary files for most of the applications. So it scales much faster."
"In terms of application security best practices and guidance to our teams, their engineering staff is really excellent. They provide our developers with suggestions and they take those to heart. They've learned from the recommended remediation strategies provided by the Veracode security engineers. That makes all of their future code better."
"It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
"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 ease of configuration and customization could be improved in CAST Highlight."
"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."
"Veracode scans provide a higher number of 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."
"Veracode Static Analysis could improve the terminology. For example, I do not know what the sandbox scan does. The terminology and the way they have used it are quite confusing. They should have a process of capturing problems that users are having on their end."
"The solution does not support Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"There should be more control for administrative users so that we can add and delete any functionality or module within the platform. We should not have to reach out to Veracode's customer support every time. We should be able to customize our modules."
"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."
"There needs to be better API integration to the development team's pipeline, which is something that is missing and needs to be improved."
"I would like to see more AI features. It's a current subject because with ChatGPT and other solutions being developed all the time, IT attacks will increase... To defend against those it's very important that the good guys use AI in ways that are good instead of bad."
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.
