No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) vs Contrast Security Assess comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Continuous Dynamic (formerl...
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (12th)
Contrast Security Assess
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (24th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 4.4%, up 2.6% compared to last year.
Contrast Security Assess, on the other hand, focuses on Static Application Security Testing (SAST), holds 1.3% mindshare, up 0.5% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic)4.4%
Veracode14.5%
Checkmarx One14.2%
Other66.9%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Contrast Security Assess1.3%
SonarQube14.2%
Checkmarx One9.1%
Other75.4%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user245412 - PeerSpot reviewer
Executive Vice President, Operations at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
The product and customer service is extremely efficient but I would like to see more research and code examples.
* The continuous online scanning capabilities and reporting features. * The SaaS product features accessible from a browser make managing our online systems easy. * The ability to review security items quickly along with being able to retest vulnerabilities on our schedule make the Sentinel product an invaluable tool for our company’s product security requirements.
Eucharia Okafor - PeerSpot reviewer
DevSecOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Continuous in-app security has transformed our development workflow and has reduced manual checks
Contrast Security Assess changes how the team thinks about security. Instead of us waiting for a security audit at the end of any sprint, vulnerabilities surface as developers are writing and testing code. That shift is significant because fixing a bug in development costs more than fixing it later. It captures everything right there and remediates it because it catches vulnerability and remediates immediately while the application is running. It improves our collaboration between development and security teams, as developers get clear actionable findings immediately. We get continuous visibility into our application risk posture. Ultimately, it helps us to shift fast and save money, which is usually a trade-off, but Contrast Security Assess makes both possible. The feature that stands out most to me in Contrast Security Assess is the ability to capture vulnerability while the application is running. Another standout feature is the real-time detection that finds vulnerabilities as code runs. It has fewer false positives and works continuously in the application; you install it and it is there. It captures issues during development quickly and is easily integrated with a CI/CD pipeline, especially if you are using GitLab or GitHub. The real-time detection feature of Contrast Security Assess helps us very well compared to traditional SAST tools. Traditional tools scan from the outside and guess where problems might be. Contrast Security Assess works from the inside because it is embedded into the application. The agent lives inside the running application, allowing it to see exactly what is happening in real-time. This means we are getting accurate alerts instead of a long list of potential issues that require manual investigation. When it comes to the CI/CD pipeline, Contrast Security Assess really shines for our daily work, as it plugs directly into tools like Jenkins, GitHub, or Azure DevOps. When a developer commits code and triggers a build, Contrast Security Assess is already testing it in the background. If there is any vulnerability, the pipeline automatically flags or stops the application before bad code reaches production. This means security becomes everyone's responsibility, not just the security team's, and it gives us real-time, accurate security that fits into how our team already works.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The SaaS product features accessible from a browser make managing our online systems easy."
"One of the key takeaways is that in order to have a secure application, you cannot rely on just the pentest, vulnerability assessments, and the periodicity of the reviews; you need the real-time feedback on that, and Contrast Assess offers that."
"The time it saves us is on the order of one US-based FTE, a security person at an average pay level, and at a bare minimum Contrast helps us like that resource; it's like having a CISSP guy, in the US, on our payroll."
"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away."
"The most valuable feature is the continuous monitoring aspect: the fact that we don't have to wait for scans to complete for the tool to identify vulnerabilities. They're automatically identified through developers' business-as-usual processes."
"From a percentage perspective, somewhere around 90 percent of the time we used to spend has been given back to our team, because the false positive rate with Contrast is less than 5 percent."
"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."
"Overall, the product is strong and improving, support is responsive and effective, and supported integrations work for many customers."
"You cannot get much better than Contrast Security Assess for large deployments of applications and also critical applications."
 

Cons

"I would like to see more research and code examples for the vulnerabilities identified to better assist us with our remediation process."
"Contrast Security Assess could improve in the reporting and the dashboard experience."
"Their level of support and troubleshooting for the product is limited because of how they handle troubleshooting. It's done through a log file that's very cumbersome to work with."
"The setup of the solution is different for each application. That's the one thing that has been a challenge for us. The deployment itself is simple, but it's tough to automate because each application is different, so each installation process for Contrast is different."
"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."
"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."
"I do find that here and there with Contrast Security Assess there are user interface issues, particularly with how they work with libraries."
"To instrument an agent, it has to be running on a type of application technology that the agent recognizes and understands. It's excellent when it works. If we're using an application that is using an unsupported technology, then we can't instrument it at all. We do use PHP and Contrast presently doesn't support that, although it's on their roadmap. My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."
"My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."
"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."
"The solution is expensive."
"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."
"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."
"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."
"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
906,781 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Contrast Security Assess?
Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, the annual licensing for Contrast Security Assess costs about $20,000 to $100,000 per year, and per application, it costs about $5,000 to $15,000 per y...
What needs improvement with Contrast Security Assess?
Contrast Security Assess could improve in the reporting and the dashboard experience. While the data is there, pulling together an executive-level summary requires too much manual work. I would lov...
What advice do you have for others considering Contrast Security Assess?
The biggest production gain from Contrast Security Assess is the reduced costs and overhead within my company. Security feedback comes to developers instantly with Contrast Security Assess, reducin...
 

Also Known As

Sentinel Dynamic, WhiteHat Security Application Security Testing, Synopsys WhiteHat Dynamic
Contrast Assess
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, OpenText and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: July 2026.
906,781 professionals have used our research since 2012.