Contrast Security Assess vs NowSecure comparison

Contrast Security and NowSecure are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. Contrast Security is ranked #27, while NowSecure is ranked #40. Contrast Security holds a 1.0% mindshare in SAST, compared to NowSecure’s 0.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Contrast Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NowSecure users who would recommend it.

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

2,206 Views
1,147 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

NowSecure

Read 1 NowSecure review

594 Views
564 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

NowSecure

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Contrast Security Assess and NowSecure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 883,089 peers since 2012

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 Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

27th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (29th)

NowSecure

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

40th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (20th)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Contrast Security Assess is 1.0%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NowSecure is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Contrast Security Assess	1.0%
NowSecure	0.6%
Other	98.4%

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

reviewer1605099

Director of Threat and Vulnerability Management at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees

We're gathering vulnerability data from multiple environments in real time, fundamentally changing how we identify issues in applications

The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of. Assess also provides the option of helping developers incorporate security elements while they're writing code. It depends on whether individual developers decide to utilize the information that's provided to them from the solution, but it definitely gives them visibility into more environments. It gives them an opportunity to remediate vulnerabilities well before production deployments.

Read full review

AnirudhNair

Quality Assurance and Analyst Intern at a university with 201-500 employees

Scalable and reliable, but dynamic analysis needs improvement

I would advise others when testing using NowSecure to do secondary tests with other tools. For example, set it up in the local environment and recheck what the results of the reports are. Since the dynamic results are less accurate, I would suggest using static analysis. I rate NowSecure a seven out of ten.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I am impressed with the product's identification of alerts and vulnerabilities."

"The solution is very accurate in identifying vulnerabilities. In cases where we are performing application assessment using Contrast Assess, and also using legacy application security testing tools, Contrast successfully identifies the same vulnerabilities that the other tools have identified but it also identifies significantly more. In addition, it has visibility into application components that other testing methodologies are unaware of."

"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."

"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."

"By far, the thing that was able to provide value was the immediate response while testing ahead of release, in real-time."

"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."

"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."

"Assess has an excellent API interface to pull APIs."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

"The most valuable feature is the ability to download an application without actually putting in the APK. It gives us an option to put the APK in if we want to but we can download it from the App Store and Play Store."

Cons

"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."

"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."

"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."

"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."

"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."

"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 should provide more details in the section where it shows that third-party libraries have CVEs or some vulnerabilities."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end. The reports could be adaptable to the customer's preferences."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

"In this solution, there are two kinds of testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. There needs some improvement in testing with dynamic analysis because I have found it is not accurate"

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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 product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"The solution is expensive."

"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."

"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."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

883,089 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Retailer

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Outsourcing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

No data available

Comparisons

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

Digital.ai Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess Competitors

CodeScan Static Code Analysis vs NowSecure

Compared 17% of the time

Data Theorem API Secure vs NowSecure

Compared 16% of the time

Veracode vs NowSecure

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Core Application Security vs NowSecure

Compared 11% of the time

ImmuniWeb vs NowSecure

Compared 11% of the time

More NowSecure Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess

February 2026

Download Contrast Security Assess product report

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Testing Tools

February 2026

Download NowSecure product report

Also Known As

Contrast Assess

No data available

Overview

Contrast Security is the world’s leading provider of security technology that enables software applications to protect themselves against cyberattacks, heralding the new era of self-protecting software. Contrast's patented deep security instrumentation is the breakthrough technology that enables highly accurate assessment and always-on protection of an entire application portfolio, without disruptive scanning or expensive security experts. Only Contrast has sensors that work actively inside applications to uncover vulnerabilities, prevent data breaches, and secure the entire enterprise from development, to operations, to production.

Contrast Security

NowSecure experts have conducted advanced pen testing for some of the world's most demanding organizations - including banks, insurance companies, government agencies, healthcare organizations, retail conglomerates, high-tech businesses, and more. Mobile apps are prone to sensitive data leakages and attacks, yet a manual test for just one app can take several weeks. To enable faster, more frequent testing, we built a test engine that successfully automates repeatable and time-consuming mobile appsec testing, remediation and reporting tasks. The result - the foundation of the NowSecure platform, which significantly reduces testing time and costs without compromising full depth of security coverage.

NowSecure

Sample Customers

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

Vaporstream, FIS, MEA Financial, Silent Circle, Capital One, Citi, EY, EMC, Emerson, Kaiser Permanente, The Home Depot, Humana, Shell, Kellogg's, TD Bank, VMware

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

February 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

883,089 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.