Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Contrast Security Assess vs CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

Contrast Security Assess
Ranking in Application Security Tools
30th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (28th)
CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Se...
Ranking in Application Security Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (4th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (6th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (8th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (7th), Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management (CIEM) (2nd), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Contrast Security Assess is 0.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ToddMcAlister - PeerSpot reviewer
It has an excellent API interface to pull APIs.
Assess has brought our development time down because it helps create code the first time. Instead of going through the Jenkins process to build an application, they can see right off the bat that if there are errors in the code and fix them before it even goes to build.
Saif Ullah Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Boosts security by automatically blocking applications or activities, but query responses have been slower recently
For the past six months, we have been facing some issues. Because it is a cloud-based infrastructure, it has been getting slower. There are no bugs because they release updates continuously. We highly appreciate that, but during hunting or running a query on different logs, the time frame has increased in the past six months. It takes longer to give us the results. Another issue is the lack of proper documentation. During investigations, there is no proper documentation available. This is a problem because many people are saying there should be proper documentation explaining what CrowdStrike captures from the machine and the meaning of it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."
"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away. In our internal comparisons among different tools, Contrast consistently finds more impactful vulnerabilities, and also identifies vulnerabilities that are nearly guaranteed to be there, meaning that the chance of false positives is very low."
"This has changed the way that developers are looking at usage of third-party libraries, upfront. It's changing our model of development and our culture of development to ensure that there is more thought being put into the usage of third-party libraries."
"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."
"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."
"In our most critical applications, we have a deep dive in the code evaluation, which was something we usually did with periodic vulnerability assessments, code reviews, etc. Now, we have real time access to it. It's something that has greatly enhanced our code's quality. We have actually embedded a KPI in regards to the improvement of our code shell. For example, Contrast provides a baseline where libraries and the usability of the code are evaluated, and they produce a score. We always aim to improve that score. On a quarterly basis, we have added this to our KPIs."
"It is a stable solution...Contrast Security Assess is one of the first players in this market, so they have experience and customers, especially abroad. Overall, it's a good product."
"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."
"I think the overall solution should be rated a ten out of ten."
"The threat intelligence is the most vital feature"
"Cloud security posture management (CSPM) is most valuable."
"The most significant benefit is how quickly malware and other malicious attacks are detected."
"The most valuable features are the real-time response, which allows me to log into a machine to pull files and check signatures for malicious activities, and the ability to restrict USB block storage usage on endpoints by policy."
"The scalability of the product has been great."
"It helps us by automatically blocking certain applications or activities."
"The most valuable feature is the auto-detection capability for threat hunting and issuing advisories on remedies."
 

Cons

"Contrast Security Assess covers a wide range of applications like .NET Framework, Java, PSP, Node.js, etc. But there are some like Ubuntu and the .NET Core which are not covered. They have it in their roadmap to have these agents. If they have that, we will have complete coverage."
"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."
"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."
"Contrast's ability to support upgrades on the actual agents that get deployed is limited. Our environment is pretty much entirely Java. There are no updates associated with that. You have to actually download a new version of the .jar file and push that out to your servers where your app is hosted. That can be quite cumbersome from a change-management perspective."
"The product's retesting part needs improvement. The tool also needs improvement in the suggestions provided for fixing vulnerabilities. It relies more on documentation rather than on quick fixes."
"The solution should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."
"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."
"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."
"Different file options should be available, and clients should be able to select from the options."
"The threat intelligence and user behavioral analysis could be more comprehensive."
"There is room for improvement in the solution's ability to handle Linux systems."
"The tool's scalability is low."
"The user interface needs improvement as it's sometimes difficult to locate specific dashboards or reports."
"There were some integration issues with this product."
"The main area for improvement is pricing, as it is quite expensive."
"For the past six months, we have been facing some issues. Because it is a cloud-based infrastructure, it has been getting slower."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is pricy."
"The pricing is fair for what you get. I'd rate them a solid nine out of ten in terms of pricing."
"It is expensive, but it adds value."
"The price is not too high, it is okay."
"Its price is moderate."
"It's an expensive product"
"CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is very expensive for us. Last month, we had a big issue that took much time and money to resolve. It slowed down our business and required our management team to get involved. We had a problem similar to the "Blue Screen of Death" issue many US companies faced. This incident used up many of our IT resources in just a few months. That's why we're looking for a replacement tool now."
"I am not the one who handled the pricing. A different team worked on it, but it is pretty expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Contrast Security Assess?
When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities.
What needs improvement with Contrast Security Assess?
Technical support for the solution should be faster. We have to further analyze what kind of CVEs are in the reported libraries and what part of the code is affected. That analysis can be added to ...
What advice do you have for others considering Contrast Security Assess?
Contrast Security Assess is deployed on-cloud in our organization. I would recommend Contrast Security Assess to other users. It's a really good tool. It provides lots of details on web-based vulne...
What do you like most about CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security?
It's easy to gather insights and conduct analysis about existing threats.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security?
It's an expensive product. The solution costs around $60 for a single user on a yearly basis. I would rate the pricing a four out of ten.
What needs improvement with CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security?
I am not part of the current monitoring team, so I do not know how they feel about the tool. I am sharing information related to the tool based on the feedback and on my experience deploying it fou...
 

Also Known As

Contrast Assess
CrowdStrike Falcon ASPM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Contrast Security Assess vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.