SAST Evaluation Criteria
The key criteria and dimensions for evaluating Static Application Security Testing tools, including detection accuracy, coverage, integration, deployment, and analyst experience.
Primary question: What criteria should organizations use when evaluating and comparing SAST tools?
Direct answer
SAST evaluation criteria should cover detection accuracy (precision and recall), coverage breadth (languages, frameworks, vulnerability classes), integration capabilities (CI/CD, issue tracking), deployment model (cloud, on-premises, hybrid), analyst experience (findings quality, remediation guidance), and total cost of ownership.
SAST evaluation criteria should be organized into several dimensions — detection accuracy (measured against ground truth), coverage breadth (languages, frameworks, vulnerability classes), integration capabilities (CI/CD, issue tracking, security workflows), deployment model (cloud, on-premises, hybrid), analyst experience (findings quality, remediation guidance, reporting), and total cost of ownership (licensing, deployment, training, maintenance). Each organization should weight these criteria based on its specific priorities and constraints.
No single SAST tool excels in all criteria. Organizations should identify their most important criteria, score each candidate tool against those criteria, and make a procurement decision based on the weighted scoring rather than any single dimension. The best tool for one organization may not be the best for another.
Definitions
Detection accuracy
The ability of a SAST tool to correctly identify genuine vulnerabilities (recall) and avoid reporting non-vulnerabilities (precision), measured against known ground truth.
Coverage breadth
The extent to which a SAST tool can analyze different programming languages, frameworks, vulnerability classes, and code patterns.
Analyst experience
The quality of the findings produced by a SAST tool, including the clarity of vulnerability descriptions, actionability of remediation guidance, and overall usability of the tool's interface and reporting.
The engineering problem
Organizations may select SAST tools based on a single criterion (such as detection accuracy) while overlooking integration complexity, analyst experience, or total cost of ownership.
Evaluation criteria may not be weighted based on organizational priorities, resulting in procurement decisions that do not reflect actual operational needs.
SAST tools may be evaluated against different criteria or methodologies, making it impossible to compare results objectively.
Security controls
Each control inspects a different artifact and produces evidence for an engineering decision.
Detection accuracy criteria
Accuracy measurement- Artifact
- Evaluation criteria that measure SAST detection accuracy (precision and recall) against known ground truth in representative codebases.
- Risk
- Selecting a SAST tool based on detection claims that have not been empirically verified.
- Output
- Measured detection accuracy against ground truth.
Evidence:
Coverage criteria
Coverage assessment- Artifact
- Evaluation criteria that measure the breadth of language, framework, vulnerability class, and code pattern support.
- Risk
- Selecting a SAST tool that does not cover the organization's actual technology stack or vulnerability classes.
- Output
- Measured coverage breadth against organizational technology stack.
Evidence:
Integration criteria
Integration assessment- Artifact
- Evaluation criteria that measure the quality of CI/CD integration, issue tracking integration, and security workflow integration.
- Risk
- Selecting a SAST tool that does not integrate well with existing tooling, creating workflow friction.
- Output
- Validated integration with existing tooling and workflows.
Evidence:
Analyst experience criteria
Experience assessment- Artifact
- Evaluation criteria that measure the quality of findings, remediation guidance, reporting, and overall tool usability.
- Risk
- Selecting a SAST tool that produces findings of poor quality, reducing analyst productivity and adoption.
- Output
- Measured analyst experience with documented strengths and weaknesses.
Evidence:
Verification workflow
- Define evaluation criteria across all relevant dimensions: accuracy, coverage, integration, deployment, analyst experience, and cost.
- Assign weights to each criterion based on organizational priorities.
- Select representative codebases and create ground truth datasets.
- Score each candidate SAST tool against each criterion.
- Calculate weighted scores for each tool.
- Document findings and make a procurement decision based on weighted scoring.
- Review and update criteria periodically as organizational needs change.
DerScanner · Enterprise
Relationship to DerScanner
DerScanner provides SAST analysis with coverage of multiple programming languages and frameworks, CI/CD integration via command-line interaction, on-premises deployment options, and reporting capabilities.
DerScanner provides static analysis with coverage of multiple programming languages and frameworks, CI/CD integration via command-line interaction, on-premises deployment options, and reporting capabilities. [derscanner-sast]
Limits of verification
- Evaluation criteria may need to be adjusted as organizational priorities, technology stack, or development practices change.
- Weighted scoring systems may not capture the full complexity of SAST tool selection, especially when criteria are interdependent.
- No single evaluation methodology can guarantee that the selected tool will perform optimally in all production scenarios.
Related knowledge
How to Evaluate SAST Tools
The broader methodology for evaluating SAST tools
Relationship: related-toSAST Proof of Concept
How to structure a SAST proof of concept evaluation
Relationship: related-toMulti-SAST Strategy
Using multiple SAST tools in a security workflow
Relationship: related-toApplication Security Assurance
Building layered application security assurance
Relationship: related-toCanonical terms used: SAST evaluation criteria; SAST tool comparison; Detection accuracy; Coverage breadth.
Evidence and references
- DerScanner SAST documentationDerScanner SAST analyzes supported source and binary formats, configuration files, and reporting and comparison of analysis results, with command-line interaction with CI systems and SSDLC integration.
derscanner-sast
SAST evaluation