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

Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) vs Polyspace Code Prover 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) (9th)
Polyspace Code Prover
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) and Polyspace Code Prover aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic) is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 4.8%, up 2.3% compared to last year.
Polyspace Code Prover, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 1.3% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Continuous Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Dynamic)4.8%
Veracode17.2%
Checkmarx One16.4%
Other61.6%
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Polyspace Code Prover1.3%
SonarQube16.3%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other72.5%
Application Security Tools
 

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.
reviewer2760282 - PeerSpot reviewer
General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

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."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
 

Cons

"I would like to see more research and code examples for the vulnerabilities identified to better assist us with our remediation process."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We use the paid version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
36%
Computer Software Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
6%
Healthcare Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two ...
What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?
It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.
What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?
We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...
 

Also Known As

Sentinel Dynamic, WhiteHat Security Application Security Testing, Synopsys WhiteHat Dynamic
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, OpenText and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: March 2026.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.