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."It offers good performance."
"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."
"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 most valuable features of CAST Highlight are automation and speed."
"CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard."
"Veracode supports a broad range of code technologies, and it can analyze large applications. Fortify takes a long time and may not be able to generate the report for larger applications. We don't have these constraints with Veracode."
"It has given our management a view into issues with all of our product lines. We have three products and all of them were scanned. As a result, the project lead for each product has taken measures to improve things."
"It pinpoints the errors. Its accuracy is very interesting. It also elaborates on flaws, meaning it provides you with details about what is valid or not and how something can be fixed."
"The security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics."
"It is SaaS hosted. That makes it very convenient to use. There is no initial time needed to set up an application. Scanning is a matter of minutes. You just log in, create an application profile, associate a security configuration, and that's about it. It takes 10 minutes to start. The lack of initial lead time or initial overhead to get going is the primary advantage."
"Before Veracode, the application was deployed to the production server and there would be a lot of bugs and issues. Once we implemented the Veracode scan, the full deployment issues were drastically reduced."
"Good static analysis and dynamic analysis."
"Veracode is very easy to use."
"The reports that describe the issues of concern are rather abstract and the issues should be more clearly described to the user."
"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."
"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."
"Veracode's false positives have room for improvement."
"We get some false positives with JavaScript languages like React, TypeScript, and Angular. The problem is rooted in the build process of JavaScript, not the code we are using. This is something we spend lots of time trying to resolve. When we point to a specific library and review that on the code, we can see it is a part of the build that isn't going into production. It's only a part of the build because JavaScript has a different build process."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"It's taking too much time to do a quality scan."
"They should improve on the static scanning time."
"The on-platform reporting needs to be opened up much more. We'd like to be able to look at the inspection data from a trending perspective in a much more open manner. I need to be able to sort and filter much more flexibly than I can today."
"The solution could improve the Dynamic Analysis Security Testing(DAST)."
"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."
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
CAST Highlight is ranked 10th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 5 reviews while Veracode is ranked 3rd in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 186 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, Black Duck and Sonatype Lifecycle, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Snyk, Fortify on Demand 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.