1. Match each tool to the question it can answer
Application security tools examine different parts of a system. Define the decision you need to make before comparing feature lists. A source-code finding, a runtime observation and an exposed service are different kinds of evidence.
| Capability | Evaluation input | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| SAST | Representative source code in your languages and frameworks. | Affected code, rule rationale, available data flow and a remediation that fits the application. |
| DAST | A scoped test application and representative accounts. | Reachable routes, authentication coverage, requests and responses, and the distinction between confirmed and potential findings. |
| MAST | Your supported Android or iOS package format. | The analyzed package, platform-specific findings and any limits caused by packaging, obfuscation or missing runtime context. |
| ASM | Domains and assets your organization owns. | Asset attribution, discovery sources, exposure observations and change history. |
| GRC | A representative control, risk, evidence item and audit workflow. | Ownership, evidence provenance, approvals, reporting and the supported language and deployment requirements. |
2. Include vulnerable examples and safe controls
Prepare a small set of known weaknesses and equivalent safe implementations. If an evaluation contains only vulnerable examples, it cannot tell you how often the tool flags safe code. Keep the application version, configuration and test scope recorded so that another team member can reproduce the result.
Review a sample of both detected and missed issues. Count a finding as confirmed only when the supporting evidence satisfies your acceptance criteria. A clean scan is meaningful only when the relevant code or application routes were actually covered.
3. Test the path from a finding to a verified fix
Have a developer investigate a real finding without assistance from the evaluator. Check whether the location, explanation and suggested remediation provide enough context. Apply the fix, rerun the relevant test and confirm that the expected behavior remains intact.
Record time spent investigating the finding separately from the scanner’s run time. A fast scan with ambiguous results can still create a slow operational workflow. Treat evaluation timing as specific to the application and configuration tested.
4. Measure coverage before comparing finding counts
For SAST, confirm language and framework handling with code that resembles your production projects. For DAST, record authentication success, reachable routes and excluded actions. For mobile analysis, record the exact package format and analysis mode. For ASM, identify which discovery and intelligence sources were available.
Ask for unsupported, skipped and failed checks to be visible. These states should not be reported as a successful clean result. Raw vulnerability totals are difficult to compare when tools use different scopes or group related findings differently.
5. Exercise your deployment and integrations
Run one representative pipeline, one report export and one identity workflow. Validate the permissions each integration needs and the information passed between systems. For a disconnected environment, use the deployment evaluation checklist and test with external access disabled.
6. Set boundaries for AI-assisted testing
Evaluate the AI Pentester and autonomous red teaming against a written scope. Check approval checkpoints, excluded actions, stop controls and the evidence produced. Review whether the result supports the claim being made; a generated narrative alone is insufficient proof of exploitability.
7. Agree commercial and operational scope
List the products, deployment model, scan capacity, environments, support and integrations included in the proposal. Do not assume that a platform label includes every product or that every deployment provides identical capabilities. Confirm how expansion and renewal work using the pricing discussion.
Evaluation scorecard
Record a result of pass, partial, fail or not tested for each criterion. Attach the evidence and name an owner for every unresolved item. A partial result should describe what worked and what remains unverified.
- Required application and language coverage demonstrated.
- Known weaknesses detected and safe controls assessed.
- Findings supported by inspectable evidence.
- Remediation and retesting completed by a developer.
- Required identity, pipeline and reporting workflows exercised.
- Deployment and offline requirements validated where applicable.
- Licensing, product scope, support and ownership agreed.
Plan a focused Offensive360 evaluation
Bring your highest-priority use case, representative technology stack and deployment requirements to a 30-minute walkthrough. The team can help define a follow-on evaluation and its acceptance criteria.