Contrast Security Assess vs ImmuniWeb comparison

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"After the assessment, you clearly know which assets require penetration testing."

"ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. The solution is highly stable. The solution is scalable. Editing Key Points for Review "Review about ImmuniWeb" What is our primary use case? We use the solution when we face challenges and urgent attention is needed for complex cases from our clients. To address this, we collaborate with the middleware, internal, and client teams to analyze and sort through intricate logs concerning our business cybersecurity program. How has it helped my organization? The solution helped us with one of our clients in the New York area contacted us about a data breach. In response, we swiftly organized a case meeting involving our client, internal, and email customer support teams. Together, we conducted an incident response, facilitating offline assistance for proper planning and risk management processes. We delved into the details of the data breach, identified how it occurred, and collaborated to rectify the issue. The client expressed satisfaction with the resolution process. What is most valuable? ImmuniWeb boasts a robust vulnerability detection mechanism, formidable threat mitigation, and an efficient remediation process, incorporating automation techniques and ALM strategies. It also focuses on consumer satisfaction and operates in English-speaking markets, primarily required by the UAE, the United States, Canada, and Australia, among other developed countries. For how long have I used the solution? We have been using this product for the past one and half years. What do I think about the stability of the solution? The solution is highly stable. I rate it a perfect ten. What do I think about the scalability of the solution? The solution is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. How are customer service and support? Support is generally excellent"

"The initial setup process is user-friendly."

"I like the fully automated continuous discovery run by ImmuniWeb in the background. We do not need to rerun the same tests or the same scanning against our resources. We need to supply our IP addresses, domain names, and significant resources with special domain names and URLs, and we need to do it only once. Then we always have an up-to-date picture. I also like the integration with our single sign-on system. We do not need to maintain a separate set of usernames or user accounts. We can plug this ImmuniWeb service into our authentication technology, enabling two-factor authentication. We have secure authentication right out of the box. The other important feature I like is the executive view. You can easily switch from a technical view to an executive view and have a helicopter view of the compliance status. We can see how much effort is required and our current status."

"The solution's most valuable feature is reporting."

"The most valuable features are the SLA of Zero false-positives, less time of service development, validation of unlimited patched vulnerabilities, and several others."

"ImmuniWeb is stable."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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 needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."

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

"A great idea would be to make a mobile application for the ImmuniWeb portal so that all information would be available on the go and from a mobile phone as well. It would be much more convenient."

"A great idea would be to support using Discovery on the internal network, allowing delivery of all the features of the current Discovery to internal network resources."

"The deployment process on the cloud is straightforward, while on-premise can be complex. Support is generally excellent, although there can be delays in ticket resolution."

"ImmuniWeb sometimes shows previous scans instead of running tests."

"Its technical support could be better."

"It would be better if they had an automated tagging feature. The tagging functionality currently requires manual tagging, and that's probably the most needed feature from my standpoint. We also do not have enough tools, enough features, or options to display different resources in the way we need. There are basic grouping and some filtering features, but we still cannot fully separate some flavors of our resources. However, we may not be aware of the latest features."

"The product’s interface for the web applications could be similar to Android and iOS versions."

"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."

"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."

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

"The solution is expensive."

"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 platform is expensive if a large development is involved. However, it is less expensive for scheduled-based testing, quarterly or in a year."

"It is pretty expensive."

"ImmuniWeb is relatively cheap. It's a competitive price compared to other products in the marketplace. It's worth the money we are paying for it."

"I use the product's free version. The tool costs around 229 dollars."

"The values of ImmuniWeb are currently significantly below what is valued in the Chilean market for these services and solutions."

"There should be the flexibility to change or add pricing, especially for pay-per-use cases."

"It is pretty expensive."