Top 10 DAST Tools

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) has become essential for modern security programs as web applications and APIs continue to grow in complexity. With threat actors increasingly targeting production environments and runtime behaviors, enterprises need more than code analysis or network firewalls. They need real world simulation of attacks on live applications to uncover exploitable flaws before attackers do.

Recent industry research shows that over 70% of successful breaches in 2023 stemmed from vulnerabilities in application layer components, especially APIs and web services. Traditional perimeter defenses and code level scans often miss these issues, making DAST a vital part of the security stack. It works by testing applications from the outside in, much like an attacker would, to find weaknesses such as SQL injection, Cross Site Scripting (XSS), and authentication bypasses without requiring access to the source code.

For security leaders, the challenge is not just adopting DAST but choosing the right tool that fits their risk profile, integrates into modern DevSecOps workflows, and scales with evolving architectures. 

This guide breaks down the top 10 DAST tools in 2025, the benefits they offer, their limitations, especially with APIs, and why platforms like Levo are helping enterprises move beyond traditional DAST to address blind spots in runtime API security.

TL;DR

DAST tools simulate real world attacks against live applications to uncover vulnerabilities that static analysis and firewalls often miss. They are essential for identifying issues like injection flaws, broken authentication, and security misconfigurations especially in production environments.

However, most DAST solutions struggle with modern APIs, where business logic flaws, broken object level authorization, and dynamic behaviors are difficult to assess without deep context. This gap leaves enterprises exposed even when traditional scanning tools report clean results.

Levo addresses this by combining runtime aware API security testing with continuous validation. It surfaces issues DAST tools often miss, such as authorization bypasses and logic abuses, by observing actual API behavior in real time. As a result, teams can confidently identify and remediate high impact vulnerabilities that slip past legacy DAST tools.

What are DAST Tools?

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) tools identify security vulnerabilities by simulating external attacks on a running application. Unlike static testing tools that analyze source code, DAST operates like an ethical hacker; it evaluates an application from the outside without knowing how it is built. This black box approach is well suited for detecting web application security issues like XSS, CSRF, SSRF, directory traversal, and other flaws exposed through an application’s HTTP interface.

How do DAST Tools work?

DAST tools interact with a deployed application just as a real user or attacker would. They crawl web interfaces, identify inputs, and send a variety of crafted payloads to test for exploitable weaknesses. These tools do not require access to source code, making them especially useful in pre-production or production environments.

In enterprise settings, DAST solutions are integrated into CI/CD pipelines or executed as part of scheduled test cycles. They generate alerts when they detect vulnerabilities like Cross Site Scripting (XSS), SQL Injection, or other input validation failures. Their strength lies in runtime evaluation, catching issues that only appear when the application is live; something static tools can miss.

That said, DAST tools face limitations when testing APIs, especially those that use dynamic parameters or non standard authentication. They often rely on Swagger or OpenAPI specifications to understand API structure, but lack the deeper runtime context needed to uncover logic flaws or broken authorization.

This is where platforms like Levo extend traditional DAST capabilities. By continuously validating API behavior and integrating runtime intelligence, Levo identifies vulnerabilities that conventional DAST tools often miss, whether they stem from distributed microservice architectures or complex authentication and authorization flows; and surfaces them before attackers can exploit them.

Why are DAST Tools Important?

DAST tools play a vital role in uncovering vulnerabilities that only manifest during application runtime, an area often missed by code level scans or perimeter defenses. 

Their significance becomes clear across several key dimensions:

1. Identify Vulnerabilities that only emerge at Runtime

DAST operates like a simulated attacker, evaluating how applications behave under stress, misused inputs, and edge case requests.

For example, an input validation bypass might not be evident in code (SAST), but becomes clear when tested with an active payload. DAST helps uncover these real world weaknesses, including SQL injection, XSS, authentication flaws, and misconfigurations.

2. Reduce Breach Risk by simulating real world Attack Behavior

According to IBM, the average cost of a data breach in 2023 reached $4.45 million. Many of these breaches exploit runtime flaws ones DAST is designed to catch. Unlike WAFs, which depend on known signatures, DAST discovers novel paths attackers might use in production.

This is especially crucial as threat actors increasingly automate their discovery of exploitable issues.

3. Help Meet Compliance and Regulatory Expectations

Security standards like PCI DSS, HIPAA, and ISO 27001 increasingly expect dynamic testing across the SDLC. DAST helps demonstrate due diligence by actively testing applications in their environments.

The findings can be included in audit reports and policy attestations, providing security and compliance teams with better coverage.

4. Enhance Security-Developer Collaboration

DAST findings are often easier for developers to triage because they’re tied to live endpoints and real workflows, not abstract code patterns.

Example: A report might include a specific HTTP request and the corresponding server response that triggered the issue, making the finding immediately actionable for engineering teams. This level of clarity reduces mean time to resolution (MTTR) and helps organizations accelerate their overall remediation timelines.

A report might include a specific HTTP request and the server response that caused a failure, making it actionable. This improves fixed rates and shortens resolution timelines.

5. Extend Coverage Where SAST and WAF Fall Short

DAST complements static testing and WAFs by probing behavior instead of code or traffic patterns alone.

However, traditional DAST solutions often struggle with APIs, which require deeper awareness of parameter structures and business logic. This is where next-generation solutions like Levo step in providing continuous API DAST that understands application context, complex access control mechanisms and runtime behavior. authentication, role-based access, and runtime data flows.

Where Legacy DAST Falls Short

Traditional DAST tools were built for a different era one dominated by web applications with static frontends, predictable flows, and user-driven interfaces. As applications evolved into distributed systems powered by APIs, legacy DAST solutions have struggled to keep pace. 

Here’s why:

1. Limited API Visibility: DAST tools rely on crawling user interfaces to discover endpoints. APIs, however, are often hidden in backend services or only accessible during specific application states. Without deep visibility, DAST tools miss entire portions of the attack surface, especially undocumented, orphaned, or third-party APIs.
   ‍
2. No Real-Time Inventory or Documentation: Over 75% of enterprises admit they lack a complete API inventory. Even when Swagger or OpenAPI docs exist, they are often incomplete or outdated. This severely restricts what traditional scanners can test and verify.
   ‍
3. Authentication Complexity: Modern APIs use OAuth, JWT, short-lived tokens, and chained authentication flows. Legacy DAST tools often fail to handle these schemes, requiring fragile manual configurations that introduce human error and leave coverage gaps.
   ‍
4. Lack of Context-Aware Testing: Business logic flaws like BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization) require simulating multiple user roles across test cases. Traditional DAST tools use static sessions, making it impossible to uncover vertical and horizontal privilege escalations.
   ‍
5. No Behavioral Correlation: Legacy tools treat vulnerabilities as isolated events. They rarely tie issues back to the service, user, or deployment stage where they originated. This disconnect slows triage and allows the same problems to reappear release after release.

What to Look for When Choosing DAST Tools

Security leaders evaluating DAST solutions today must go beyond simple vulnerability coverage. The right platform should drive outcomes across business resilience, developer velocity, and long-term security ROI. Here are the key dimensions to assess:

1. Release Confidence and Business Risk Reduction

A modern DAST platform should enable teams to ship software on schedule without security-driven delays. Early-stage testing in staging and CI pipelines reduces the likelihood of last-minute vulnerabilities that can disrupt releases, drive unplanned engineering efforts, or impact revenue.

2. Comprehensive Coverage Across the Application Surface

Executives should prioritize tools that provide broad visibility across both web applications and APIs. Automated API discovery, schema imports, and support for complex request flows ensure no critical surface area is left untested, directly reducing blind spots and organizational risk.

3. Developer Efficiency and Velocity Enablement

DAST should empower developers, not slow them down. Solutions that integrate into CI/CD pipelines, provide actionable and low-noise findings, and support local or automated testing help developers remediate issues earlier. This preserves innovation speed while strengthening security outcomes.

4. Reduced Dependence on Reactive Production Controls

Organizations cannot rely solely on runtime detection to catch security issues. Effective DAST shifts risk mitigation earlier in the SDLC, helping identify vulnerabilities before exposure in production. This lowers incident response costs and reduces reliance on reactive security tooling.

5. Scalability and Operational Efficiency for Security Teams

As engineering scales, AppSec must keep pace without proportional headcount increases. Platforms with automated discovery, built-in authentication handling, and clear service-to-vulnerability mapping reduce manual workload, enabling security teams to focus on strategic risk reduction rather than configuration overhead.

Top 10 DAST Tools

1. Levo

‍Overview:

Levo is a purpose-built API security platform that delivers next generation API DAST by combining runtime context with automated discovery and targeted payload generation. It conducts deep, offensive testing across internal, external, and low-traffic endpoints APIs to uncover real, exploitable risks without relying on traffic replay or passive scanning.

Unlike traditional scanners that treat APIs like websites, Levo understands how APIs behave in production and simulates attacker behavior with deep context. This enables it to detect vulnerabilities such as BOLA, Broken AuthZ, and misconfigurations that legacy tools miss.

Core Features:

• API-native DAST engine designed for modern architectures
• Runs thousands of automated security tests per endpoint using runtime-aware payloads, including complex logic and auth-based attacks.
• Eliminates false positives by validating every finding with trace-level evidence, so developers know exactly what to fix.
• Integrates directly into CI/CD workflows and developer tools, enabling pre-production testing without slowing delivery cycles.
• Automatically maps vulnerabilities back to affected services and code owners, streamlining remediation and ownership.
• Enhances API DAST with eBPF-based telemetry to observe real-time data flows and authorization behavior, enabling more precise, context-aware vulnerability testing across internal, third-party, and shadow APIs.

Pros:

• Built specifically for API security, not retrofitted from web app scanning
• Maps vulnerabilities to microservices and developers for faster remediation
• Validates exploitability with real runtime behavior
• Seamless CI/CD integrations and AI-generated test coverage
• Zero false positives through trace-linked evidence

Cons:

• API-first architecture may not be relevant for UI-only scanning use cases

Pricing:

Custom pricing based on environment size, number of APIs, and coverage needs

G2 Rating:

4.9 / 5 (as per latest available data)

Best For:

Security and DevSecOps teams looking for continuous, runtime-aware DAST built for APIs and microservices. Ideal for modern cloud-native applications where business logic flaws and API misuse are top attack vectors.

2. Invicti (formerly Netsparker/Acunetix)

Overview:

Invicti is a long-standing DAST leader combining Netsparker’s proof-based scanning and Acunetix’s crawling capabilities. It automates scanning for a wide range of vulnerabilities across traditional web applications and APIs. Invicti is well-regarded for its integration into enterprise pipelines and its ability to scale across large application portfolios.

Features:

• Crawls HTML5 apps, APIs (REST/SOAP), and complex forms to identify XSS, SQLi, CSRF, and misconfigurations.
• Proof-Based Scanning confirms exploits like SQLi by executing safe, non-destructive payloads.
• CI/CD integrations for GitLab, Jenkins, Azure DevOps.
• Includes compliance scanning templates (OWASP, PCI DSS).

Pros:

• Strong vulnerability coverage with 1000+ checks.
• Proof-based scanning helps reduce false positives.
• Scales well in enterprise contexts with multiple scan targets and scheduling.
• Supports incremental scanning to speed up test cycles.

Cons:

• Partial API Coverage: Invicti depends heavily on OpenAPI spec imports and network traffic sampling, which can miss shadow, internal, or low-traffic endpoints. This leaves partner APIs and dynamically generated routes outside the scope of discovery.
• Operational Complexity and Overhead: Maintaining Invicti's full deployment, especially on-premise, requires orchestration of multiple services including web servers, scan agents, authentication verifiers, and network monitoring agents. This adds infrastructure cost and delays deployment timelines.
• Static Payloads and Rulesets: The tool fires a limited set of policy-based payloads and lacks adaptive payload generation based on runtime data flows or user roles. This limits its ability to uncover complex logic flaws, especially in chained or stateful API interactions.
• Manual Discovery and Drifting Specs: Inventory and scan targets are derived from imported documentation like Swagger or Postman files, with no built-in reconciliation with real-time traffic. This leads to incomplete coverage and documentation drift as APIs evolve.
• Limited CI/CD Adaptability: While Invicti integrates with CI pipelines, scans only target predefined endpoints. Any new or updated APIs require manual re-imports or configuration changes, creating gaps in continuous testing across environments.
• Remediation Delays: Security findings lack auto-generated tickets or payload replay capabilities. Teams must reverse-engineer exploit paths and remediation details manually, slowing down incident response and fix cycles.
• Lack of Built-in Anomaly Detection: Invicti does not include native API monitoring or anomaly detection. Teams must rely on third-party logging and manual analysis to identify emerging threats or attack patterns.

Pricing:

Quote-based enterprise pricing. Generally considered a premium solution with costs typically in the tens of thousands annually.

G2 Rating: 4.6/5

Best For: Enterprises seeking broad DAST coverage across many web applications with proven scale, accuracy, and pipeline compatibility.

3. StackHawk

Overview:

StackHawk is a modern DAST built for developers that integrates security testing directly into CI/CD workflows. It extends the OWASP ZAP engine with API-first scanning, automation, and developer-centric reporting. Its YAML-based configuration supports a “scan-as-code” model for DevSecOps.

Features:

• Scans web UIs, REST, SOAP, GraphQL, and gRPC endpoints.
• CI/CD integrations for GitHub Actions, GitLab, Jenkins.
• Developer-friendly YAML configuration for defining scan scope, credentials, and rules.
• Tickets and alerts can be routed to Jira, Slack, and other tools.

Pros:

• Strong fit for shift-left DevSecOps workflows.
• Broad API protocol support.
• Developer-centric reporting with actionable remediation guidance.
• Simple local scans via Docker for pre-deploy testing.

Cons:

• No Runtime Validation: StackHawk scans only code-derived API definitions without confirming actual API behavior in live environments. This leads to gaps in detecting real-world logic flaws or dynamic traffic conditions.
• Frequent Blind Spots: Since there is no live discovery agent, APIs that are registered dynamically or integrated during runtime are never scanned. The tool relies entirely on manually maintained OpenAPI specs and YAML configurations.
• High Manual Overhead: Security and engineering teams must constantly update endpoint lists, configure scans, and sort through large volumes of false positives. This slows down remediation efforts and drains team productivity.
• Surface-Level API Testing: Testing is constrained to single-request scenarios based on static payload templates. It cannot simulate stateful attacks, chained flows, or business logic vulnerabilities commonly found in real-world APIs.
• No Built-In Runtime Telemetry: StackHawk does not provide visibility into live traffic or behavioral anomalies. Breaches or attacks are often detected only after the fact, via logs or user reports.
• Poor OWASP API Top 10 Coverage: Without authentication automation or runtime payload tailoring, StackHawk often misses critical API issues such as broken object-level authorization or excessive data exposure.
• Remediation Delay: Reports may include irrelevant or incorrect issues. Without payload replay or context-rich insights, teams spend valuable time triaging false positives before fixes can even begin.
• Limited CI/CD Coverage: Although designed for DevOps pipelines, StackHawk’s coverage is confined to APIs defined at scan time. New or evolving endpoints in dev, staging, or production require manual reconfiguration, risking inconsistent protection across environments.

Pricing:

Starts at ~$17,700/year for 20 devs. Annual-only plan and no usage-based pricing.

G2 Rating: 4.6/5

Best For: Product teams and platform engineers embedding API testing into CI/CD, especially in startups or mid-market tech firms.

4. Bright Security (formerly NeuraLegion)

Overview:

Bright offers CI-integrated DAST with API-first support. It is tailored for early-stage security testing and automates vulnerability scans across REST, SOAP, and GraphQL. Bright emphasizes zero false positives and supports testing during dev/QA stages.

Features:

• Continuous scanning of APIs using Swagger, Postman, or GraphQL introspection.
• CLI and CI/CD plugins for test automation.
• Built-in auth support for OAuth2, API keys, JWT.
• Slack/ticketing integration for alerts.

Pros:

• Excellent API security testing depth, including GraphQL.
• Early-stage testing to catch issues pre-prod.
• Developer-first UI and triage flows.
• Low false positives by validating critical issues.

Cons:

• Limited Runtime Visibility: Bright lacks native runtime context, so API discovery and testing rely on manually uploaded OpenAPI schemas, HAR files, or crawled entry points. As a result, many internal, low-traffic, or dynamic APIs remain untested, increasing risk exposure.
• Manual Configuration Burden: Every new API requires setting up entry points, authentication objects, or schema files. This creates overhead for security teams and can delay testing of critical APIs that were not defined in advance.
• Misses Real-World Threats: Bright primarily runs static contract checks and a few predefined attack templates. It does not simulate chained flows, role-based access violations, or stateful API behavior, which leaves many OWASP API Top 10 threats undetected.
• False Sense of Security: Without behavioral discovery or continuous runtime testing, Bright can report that APIs are secure even when significant portions of the surface area remain unscanned. This results in episodic and incomplete security validation.
• Developer Drag from Alert Fatigue: Reports frequently contain false positives, static spec mismatches, and limited remediation guidance. Developers must reverse-engineer fixes manually, slowing down response times and reducing confidence in findings.
• No Context-Aware Payload Generation: Bright’s payloads are not dynamically adapted to each application’s logic or data flow. This reduces the effectiveness of finding business-logic flaws or auth-related misconfigurations.
• Security Testing Does Not Scale Easily: Operational effort grows with each new service added. Teams must constantly manage schemas, crawler configurations, and CI pipeline settings to maintain test coverage.
• CI/CD Coverage Gaps: Although pipeline integration is supported, it only covers endpoints included in each scan config. Newly developed or updated APIs require manual schema re-imports, which risks inconsistent protection across environments.
• No On-Prem Support: Organizations that require strict data residency or full deployment control may be limited by Bright’s cloud-first delivery model.

Pricing:

Usage-based SaaS pricing.

G2 Rating: ~4.8/5

Best For: Teams prioritizing API-first security and developer-led testing in CI/CD pipelines.

5. Burp Suite

Overview: Burp Suite is a security testing toolkit widely used by penetration testers. Burp Pro offers powerful manual tools, while Burp Enterprise automates DAST scanning across apps. It supports proxying, request replay, and plugin-based extensibility.

Features:

• Intercepting proxy, repeater, and intruder tools for manual testing.
• Scanner with customizable rulesets for common web flaws.
• Plugin ecosystem (BApp Store) for expanded attack vectors.
• Enterprise version adds dashboards and CI integration.

Pros:

• Powerful tooling for manual discovery of complex logic flaws.
• Low false positives with expert use.
• Extensible for niche technologies via plugins.
• The enterprise version brings scale and automation.

Cons:

• Steep learning curve; not developer-oriented.
• API coverage is limited unless manually driven.
• Enterprise automation requires separate licensing.

Pricing:

Community: Free. Pro: ~$449/user/year. Enterprise: Quote-based.

G2 Rating: 4.8/5

Best For: Expert security teams performing deep manual or hybrid testing of complex web applications.

6. OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy)

Overview:

OWASP ZAP is a free, open-source DAST tool maintained by the OWASP Foundation, now with commercial support from Checkmarx. It is one of the most widely used dynamic testing tools, offering both automated scanning and manual proxy-based assessment for web applications. ZAP is frequently used by individual security researchers, educators, and budget-conscious DevSecOps teams looking to embed basic DAST into CI/CD pipelines.

Features:

• Automated scanning and spidering of forms, AJAX content, and basic API endpoints
• Passive vulnerability scanning for information leaks and misconfigurations
• Intercepting proxy and manual fuzzing tools
• Extensible via a rich plugin ecosystem (e.g., GraphQL add-ons)

Pros:

• Completely free and open source, making it accessible to all organizations regardless of budget.
• Flexible and extensible, with scripting capabilities and a wide range of community-supported add-ons.
• Straightforward CI/CD integration using Docker containers and command-line tools.
• Effective at identifying common web vulnerabilities in small to medium-sized applications.

Cons:

• Enterprise-grade features like centralized reporting, issue management, and compliance mapping are limited or require custom work.
• Less reliable when testing complex, large-scale apps or modern APIs without significant manual tuning.
• False positives may occur without fine-tuned configurations, and business logic flaws are often missed without custom scripting.

Pricing:

Free and open source. Commercial support is available through Checkmarx.

G2 Rating: 4.7/5

Best For:

Security-conscious development teams and budget-constrained organizations building basic AppSec practices into CI/CD pipelines.

7. Rapid7 InsightAppSec

Overview:

InsightAppSec is Rapid7’s cloud-based DAST platform designed for enterprise-grade dynamic security testing of web apps and APIs. Built on the legacy AppSpider engine, InsightAppSec integrates seamlessly with the broader Insight platform (e.g., InsightVM, InsightIDR) to provide end-to-end security visibility across assets.

Features:

• Dynamic scanning for traditional web apps and APIs using the "Universal Translator" engine
• CI/CD integrations for Jenkins, GitHub Actions, and more
• Attack replay capability to validate findings with precision
• Role-based dashboards, risk scoring, and compliance reporting

Pros:

• User-friendly interface and strong integration with other Rapid7 security tools.
• Solid coverage of legacy and modern applications with support for complex client-side technologies.
• Attack replay helps teams reproduce and remediate vulnerabilities quickly.
• Offers centralized management features for scaling across large application portfolios.

Cons:

• Not Built for Continuous Security: Performs point-in-time scans intended for compliance checks, leaving APIs unmonitored between scans and increasing breach risk.
• High Infrastructure and Operational Overhead: Requires dedicated scan engines and frequent rescans, leading to inflated costs and slower delivery cycles.
• Delayed Onboarding: On-prem deployment, manual auth setup, and complex configs extend time-to-value, delaying security across environments.
• Limited API Depth: Scans focus on traditional web vulnerabilities. Lacks automation for authentication or support for business logic testing, leaving modern API threats undetected.
• Static Payloads and Profiles: Uses fixed test templates, which don’t adapt to application context causing blind spots and missed critical issues.
• Manual Triage and Friction: Security and developer teams spend excessive time deciphering generic reports and reconfiguring scans, slowing remediation and increasing production risk.
• Crawler-Dependent Coverage: Misses internal or inactive endpoints, especially those behind auth, leading to visibility gaps attackers can exploit.
• No Runtime Monitoring or Drift Detection: Without ongoing telemetry or inventory validation, API changes go unnoticed, increasing compliance and security risk.

Pricing:

Custom pricing; estimated starting range from $20K annually. Free 30-day trial available.

G2 Rating: 4.3/5

Best For:

Enterprises seeking a full-featured DAST platform that integrates with broader vulnerability and detection programs.

8. Qualys Web Application Scanning (WAS)

Overview:

Qualys WAS is a cloud-based DAST tool within the Qualys Cloud Platform. It is engineered for enterprise-grade vulnerability scanning of web apps and APIs, with a primary focus on coverage for compliance and risk reduction across large-scale digital environments.

Features:

• Scanning of authenticated and unauthenticated web applications
• REST and SOAP API scanning via imported definitions
• Centralized dashboard integrated with Qualys's asset management and TruRisk scoring
• Compliance-ready reporting templates (e.g., PCI DSS, OWASP)

Pros:

• Mature, scalable solution for managing hundreds or thousands of apps across complex infrastructures.
• Reliable scanner with relatively low false-positive rates.
• Fully cloud-managed, with continuously updated vulnerability databases.
• Integrates well with existing Qualys vulnerability management workflows.

Cons:

• Not Built for API-First Security: Testing is retrofitted onto a web-app framework, missing deep logic flaws and modern API design patterns. Critical API threats often go untested.
• High Total Cost of Ownership: Pricing stacks across multiple Qualys modules (WAS, VMDR, EASM, etc.), making API testing expensive and TCO hard to predict.
• Complex Setup and Integration: Full deployment requires configuring multiple applications and connectors. Rollout can take months, delaying API security coverage.
• Fragmented API Inventory: Endpoint discovery relies on a patchwork of asset crawlers, gateway imports, and manual spec uploads. Internal and low-traffic APIs are frequently missed.
• Limited Payload Customization: Uses static payload libraries with no dynamic adaptation based on business context, user roles, or real-time application behavior.
• Manual Ops Drain Productivity: Teams must manage API catalogs manually, run separate scans, and sift through mixed findings without contextual developer mapping or payload replay.
• Misses Advanced Threats: Stateful, multi-step, or chained API attacks are out of scope. Testing is limited to single-request simulations with OWASP Top 10 coverage.
• No Runtime Monitoring or Drift Detection: API security is confined to scheduled scans. New endpoints and attack behaviors go unnoticed until the next scan.
• Incomplete CI/CD Coverage: While CI integration exists, testing occurs only at scheduled points, with no inline validation at the pull-request or commit level, early-stage risks persist.

Pricing:

Starts around $2,195 per app/year. Pricing varies based on bundle and usage.

G2 Rating: 4.4/5

Best For:

Large enterprises needing scalable web app security with compliance-grade reporting and integration into legacy vulnerability management ecosystems.

9. Checkmarx One (DAST Module)

Overview:

Checkmarx One is an enterprise application security platform combining SAST, SCA, IAST, and DAST. The DAST module provides black-box scanning capabilities that correlate with static findings, helping security teams prioritize exploitable vulnerabilities and align remediation efforts.

Features:

• Black-box dynamic testing of web apps and APIs
• Authentication handling and Swagger/OpenAPI import for API scans
• Correlation engine that links DAST and SAST results to pinpoint code-level issues
• Unified dashboard and policy enforcement across testing types

Pros:

• Centralized visibility of static and dynamic security issues.
• Risk scoring and correlation features help prioritize critical issues more effectively.
• Tight integration into developer ecosystems through CI/CD and ticketing tools.
• Strong support for enterprise governance, access control, and audit logging.

Cons:

• API coverage is narrower than tools built specifically for complex API security and logic testing.
• DAST capabilities are newer and may lack advanced detection techniques found in standalone solutions.
• Initial setup and fine-tuning can be time-consuming due to platform complexity.
• Costs increase significantly if only DAST is needed but bundled with broader platform licensing.

Pricing:

Enterprise custom pricing. Typically bundled with Checkmarx One licensing based on the number of apps/modules.

G2 Rating: 4.2/5 (Checkmarx overall)

Best For:

Organizations already using Checkmarx for SAST/SCA and seeking integrated dynamic testing and correlated insights in one AppSec platform.

10. Synopsys (WhiteHat Dynamic)

Overview:

Synopsys’s WhiteHat Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Sentinel) is a managed DAST platform that combines automated scanning with expert human validation. This hybrid approach delivers high-confidence results, especially for organizations needing verified findings and remediation support.

Features:

• Automated and scheduled vulnerability scanning for web applications
• Human validation of all findings before reporting
• Safe-for-production testing
• Reporting portal with trending metrics and compliance mappings

Pros:

• Exceptional accuracy thanks to manual validation of results by security experts.
• Useful for organizations that require audit-ready reporting and compliance artifacts.
• No need to maintain internal scanning infrastructure or engines.
• Testing includes nuanced vulnerabilities that automated-only scanners may miss.

Cons:

• Results may take longer to arrive compared to automated-only tools, limiting real-time CI/CD integration.
• Less developer-centric; findings are often shared in external reports rather than integrated issue trackers.
• API testing capabilities are not deeply tailored to GraphQL or complex modern APIs.
• Higher cost structure due to inclusion of expert analysis and reporting.

Pricing:

Subscription-based, priced per app or URL. Costs are typically in the five-figure range annually. Custom quotes provided based on scope.

G2 Rating: 4.3/5

Best For:

Organizations in highly regulated industries or those seeking high-assurance DAST results with expert remediation guidance, particularly when outsourcing dynamic testing to a trusted vendor.

API Security beyond DAST: Unified API Security 

DAST tools are excellent for black-box testing of applications and APIs, but they were never designed to solve every API security problem. Traditional DAST engines usually rely on static inputs, such as Swagger or Postman collections, and try to “scan” whatever surface they can see. For modern APIs, especially internal or machine-to-machine APIs, that often means:

• Limited coverage for undocumented, shadow, or orphaned endpoints
• Little understanding of business logic, such as how real users and services interact with the API over time

Some of the most critical API issues, like Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA), depend on both request structure and user-specific behavior. Classic DAST can sometimes probe for these, but without visibility into real traffic and real identities, many of these flaws are hard to reliably detect and prioritize.

This is where runtime API security comes in. These platforms don’t replace DAST or API testing they complement them by observing live traffic to provide:

• Continuous API discovery – Finding APIs that never made it into documentation, including internal and third-party services.
• Authorization anomaly detection – Monitoring calls across users and roles to spot horizontal and vertical privilege abuses.
• Context-aware risk prioritization – Tying issues back to specific users, services, or repositories so teams know what to fix first.

Runtime detection and protection are not API testing in the strict sense; they give security teams a live, contextual view of actual risk in production, while DAST and SAST show where risk might exist under test.

Levo’s platform follows this “best of both worlds” model: it blends deep API runtime intelligence with automated testing workflows, enabling insights from real traffic to discover gaps, generate better tests, and reduce time-to-remediate. For organizations that rely heavily on APIs to power digital experiences, combining DAST-based testing with runtime API visibility is becoming essential, not optional.

Benefits of using DAST Tools

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) offers several key advantages for security and engineering teams, particularly when integrated into CI/CD pipelines and broader AppSec strategies.

1. Real-World Attack Simulation

DAST tools simulate attacks the way an external attacker would. By sending crafted payloads to a running application, they test how the app responds in a real deployment environment.

Example: A DAST scanner might identify an SQL injection in a login field that static analysis missed due to obfuscated code or third-party library use.

2. Language and Framework Agnostic

Because DAST operates externally on the application, it does not depend on the programming language, framework, or access to source code.

Example: Whether your frontend is React or Angular and backend is in Java or Python, the same DAST scanner can test the complete app without needing code visibility.

3. Identifies Runtime-Only Vulnerabilities

DAST tools uncover vulnerabilities that only appear during execution, such as misconfigured web servers, insecure redirects, or improper session handling, which are often invisible to SAST.

Example: A misconfigured HTTP header (e.g., missing X-Content-Type-Options) that can be exploited at runtime would be caught by DAST but not by code scanners.

4. Reduces Security Bottlenecks in Development

Modern DAST tools integrate with CI/CD pipelines, allowing automated scans during development and pre-release. This shortens feedback loops and helps developers resolve issues early.

Example: Tools like StackHawk and Bright embed scans into GitHub Actions or Jenkins builds, allowing developers to receive real-time vulnerability alerts.

5. Supports Regulatory Compliance

DAST solutions help demonstrate due diligence in application security and support compliance reporting for standards like OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, HIPAA, and SOC 2.

Example: Regular DAST scans that produce documented reports can be presented during audits to demonstrate application-layer security controls.

6. Complements SAST, SCA, and WAF

While not a silver bullet, DAST provides external testing coverage that complements static and dependency-based analysis, and validates the effectiveness of WAF rules.

Example: A DAST test may bypass a poorly configured WAF and uncover vulnerabilities a SAST tool missed due to complex build environments.

Pros:

• Built specifically for API security, not retrofitted from web app scanning
• Maps vulnerabilities to microservices and developers for faster remediation
• Validates exploitability with real runtime behavior
• Seamless CI/CD integrations and AI-generated test coverage
• Zero false positives through trace-linked evidence

Cons:

• API-first architecture may not be relevant for UI-only scanning use cases

Pricing:

Custom pricing based on environment size, number of APIs, and coverage needs

G2 Rating:

4.9 / 5 (as per latest available data)

Best For:

Security and DevSecOps teams looking for continuous, runtime-aware DAST built for APIs and microservices. Ideal for modern cloud-native applications where business logic flaws and API misuse are top attack vectors.

2. Invicti (formerly Netsparker/Acunetix)

Overview:

Invicti is a long-standing DAST leader combining Netsparker’s proof-based scanning and Acunetix’s crawling capabilities. It automates scanning for a wide range of vulnerabilities across traditional web applications and APIs. Invicti is well-regarded for its integration into enterprise pipelines and its ability to scale across large application portfolios.

Features:

• Crawls HTML5 apps, APIs (REST/SOAP), and complex forms to identify XSS, SQLi, CSRF, and misconfigurations.
• Proof-Based Scanning confirms exploits like SQLi by executing safe, non-destructive payloads.
• CI/CD integrations for GitLab, Jenkins, Azure DevOps.
• Includes compliance scanning templates (OWASP, PCI DSS).

Pros:

• Strong vulnerability coverage with 1000+ checks.
• Proof-based scanning helps reduce false positives.
• Scales well in enterprise contexts with multiple scan targets and scheduling.
• Supports incremental scanning to speed up test cycles.

Cons:

• Partial API Coverage: Invicti depends heavily on OpenAPI spec imports and network traffic sampling, which can miss shadow, internal, or low-traffic endpoints. This leaves partner APIs and dynamically generated routes outside the scope of discovery.
• Operational Complexity and Overhead: Maintaining Invicti's full deployment, especially on-premise, requires orchestration of multiple services including web servers, scan agents, authentication verifiers, and network monitoring agents. This adds infrastructure cost and delays deployment timelines.
• Static Payloads and Rulesets: The tool fires a limited set of policy-based payloads and lacks adaptive payload generation based on runtime data flows or user roles. This limits its ability to uncover complex logic flaws, especially in chained or stateful API interactions.
• Manual Discovery and Drifting Specs: Inventory and scan targets are derived from imported documentation like Swagger or Postman files, with no built-in reconciliation with real-time traffic. This leads to incomplete coverage and documentation drift as APIs evolve.
• Limited CI/CD Adaptability: While Invicti integrates with CI pipelines, scans only target predefined endpoints. Any new or updated APIs require manual re-imports or configuration changes, creating gaps in continuous testing across environments.
• Remediation Delays: Security findings lack auto-generated tickets or payload replay capabilities. Teams must reverse-engineer exploit paths and remediation details manually, slowing down incident response and fix cycles.
• Lack of Built-in Anomaly Detection: Invicti does not include native API monitoring or anomaly detection. Teams must rely on third-party logging and manual analysis to identify emerging threats or attack patterns.

Pricing:

Quote-based enterprise pricing. Generally considered a premium solution with costs typically in the tens of thousands annually.

G2 Rating: 4.6/5

Best For: Enterprises seeking broad DAST coverage across many web applications with proven scale, accuracy, and pipeline compatibility.

3. StackHawk

Overview:

StackHawk is a modern DAST built for developers that integrates security testing directly into CI/CD workflows. It extends the OWASP ZAP engine with API-first scanning, automation, and developer-centric reporting. Its YAML-based configuration supports a “scan-as-code” model for DevSecOps.

Features:

• Scans web UIs, REST, SOAP, GraphQL, and gRPC endpoints.
• CI/CD integrations for GitHub Actions, GitLab, Jenkins.
• Developer-friendly YAML configuration for defining scan scope, credentials, and rules.
• Tickets and alerts can be routed to Jira, Slack, and other tools.

Pros:

• Strong fit for shift-left DevSecOps workflows.
• Broad API protocol support.
• Developer-centric reporting with actionable remediation guidance.
• Simple local scans via Docker for pre-deploy testing.

Cons:

• No Runtime Validation: StackHawk scans only code-derived API definitions without confirming actual API behavior in live environments. This leads to gaps in detecting real-world logic flaws or dynamic traffic conditions.
• Frequent Blind Spots: Since there is no live discovery agent, APIs that are registered dynamically or integrated during runtime are never scanned. The tool relies entirely on manually maintained OpenAPI specs and YAML configurations.
• High Manual Overhead: Security and engineering teams must constantly update endpoint lists, configure scans, and sort through large volumes of false positives. This slows down remediation efforts and drains team productivity.
• Surface-Level API Testing: Testing is constrained to single-request scenarios based on static payload templates. It cannot simulate stateful attacks, chained flows, or business logic vulnerabilities commonly found in real-world APIs.
• No Built-In Runtime Telemetry: StackHawk does not provide visibility into live traffic or behavioral anomalies. Breaches or attacks are often detected only after the fact, via logs or user reports.
• Poor OWASP API Top 10 Coverage: Without authentication automation or runtime payload tailoring, StackHawk often misses critical API issues such as broken object-level authorization or excessive data exposure.
• Remediation Delay: Reports may include irrelevant or incorrect issues. Without payload replay or context-rich insights, teams spend valuable time triaging false positives before fixes can even begin.
• Limited CI/CD Coverage: Although designed for DevOps pipelines, StackHawk’s coverage is confined to APIs defined at scan time. New or evolving endpoints in dev, staging, or production require manual reconfiguration, risking inconsistent protection across environments.

Pricing:

Starts at ~$17,700/year for 20 devs. Annual-only plan and no usage-based pricing.

G2 Rating: 4.6/5

Best For: Product teams and platform engineers embedding API testing into CI/CD, especially in startups or mid-market tech firms.

4. Bright Security (formerly NeuraLegion)

Overview:

Bright offers CI-integrated DAST with API-first support. It is tailored for early-stage security testing and automates vulnerability scans across REST, SOAP, and GraphQL. Bright emphasizes zero false positives and supports testing during dev/QA stages.

Features:

• Continuous scanning of APIs using Swagger, Postman, or GraphQL introspection.
• CLI and CI/CD plugins for test automation.
• Built-in auth support for OAuth2, API keys, JWT.
• Slack/ticketing integration for alerts.

Pros:

• Excellent API security testing depth, including GraphQL.
• Early-stage testing to catch issues pre-prod.
• Developer-first UI and triage flows.
• Low false positives by validating critical issues.

Cons:

• Limited Runtime Visibility: Bright lacks native runtime context, so API discovery and testing rely on manually uploaded OpenAPI schemas, HAR files, or crawled entry points. As a result, many internal, low-traffic, or dynamic APIs remain untested, increasing risk exposure.
• Manual Configuration Burden: Every new API requires setting up entry points, authentication objects, or schema files. This creates overhead for security teams and can delay testing of critical APIs that were not defined in advance.
• Misses Real-World Threats: Bright primarily runs static contract checks and a few predefined attack templates. It does not simulate chained flows, role-based access violations, or stateful API behavior, which leaves many OWASP API Top 10 threats undetected.
• False Sense of Security: Without behavioral discovery or continuous runtime testing, Bright can report that APIs are secure even when significant portions of the surface area remain unscanned. This results in episodic and incomplete security validation.
• Developer Drag from Alert Fatigue: Reports frequently contain false positives, static spec mismatches, and limited remediation guidance. Developers must reverse-engineer fixes manually, slowing down response times and reducing confidence in findings.
• No Context-Aware Payload Generation: Bright’s payloads are not dynamically adapted to each application’s logic or data flow. This reduces the effectiveness of finding business-logic flaws or auth-related misconfigurations.
• Security Testing Does Not Scale Easily: Operational effort grows with each new service added. Teams must constantly manage schemas, crawler configurations, and CI pipeline settings to maintain test coverage.
• CI/CD Coverage Gaps: Although pipeline integration is supported, it only covers endpoints included in each scan config. Newly developed or updated APIs require manual schema re-imports, which risks inconsistent protection across environments.
• No On-Prem Support: Organizations that require strict data residency or full deployment control may be limited by Bright’s cloud-first delivery model.

Pricing:

Usage-based SaaS pricing.

G2 Rating: ~4.8/5

Best For: Teams prioritizing API-first security and developer-led testing in CI/CD pipelines.

5. Burp Suite

Overview: Burp Suite is a security testing toolkit widely used by penetration testers. Burp Pro offers powerful manual tools, while Burp Enterprise automates DAST scanning across apps. It supports proxying, request replay, and plugin-based extensibility.

Features:

• Intercepting proxy, repeater, and intruder tools for manual testing.
• Scanner with customizable rulesets for common web flaws.
• Plugin ecosystem (BApp Store) for expanded attack vectors.
• Enterprise version adds dashboards and CI integration.

Pros:

• Powerful tooling for manual discovery of complex logic flaws.
• Low false positives with expert use.
• Extensible for niche technologies via plugins.
• The enterprise version brings scale and automation.

Cons:

• Steep learning curve; not developer-oriented.
• API coverage is limited unless manually driven.
• Enterprise automation requires separate licensing.

Pricing:

Community: Free. Pro: ~$449/user/year. Enterprise: Quote-based.

G2 Rating: 4.8/5

Best For: Expert security teams performing deep manual or hybrid testing of complex web applications.

6. OWASP ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy)

Overview:

OWASP ZAP is a free, open-source DAST tool maintained by the OWASP Foundation, now with commercial support from Checkmarx. It is one of the most widely used dynamic testing tools, offering both automated scanning and manual proxy-based assessment for web applications. ZAP is frequently used by individual security researchers, educators, and budget-conscious DevSecOps teams looking to embed basic DAST into CI/CD pipelines.

Features:

• Automated scanning and spidering of forms, AJAX content, and basic API endpoints
• Passive vulnerability scanning for information leaks and misconfigurations
• Intercepting proxy and manual fuzzing tools
• Extensible via a rich plugin ecosystem (e.g., GraphQL add-ons)

Pros:

• Completely free and open source, making it accessible to all organizations regardless of budget.
• Flexible and extensible, with scripting capabilities and a wide range of community-supported add-ons.
• Straightforward CI/CD integration using Docker containers and command-line tools.
• Effective at identifying common web vulnerabilities in small to medium-sized applications.

Cons:

• Enterprise-grade features like centralized reporting, issue management, and compliance mapping are limited or require custom work.
• Less reliable when testing complex, large-scale apps or modern APIs without significant manual tuning.
• False positives may occur without fine-tuned configurations, and business logic flaws are often missed without custom scripting.

Pricing:

Free and open source. Commercial support is available through Checkmarx.

G2 Rating: 4.7/5

Best For:

Security-conscious development teams and budget-constrained organizations building basic AppSec practices into CI/CD pipelines.

7. Rapid7 InsightAppSec

Overview:

InsightAppSec is Rapid7’s cloud-based DAST platform designed for enterprise-grade dynamic security testing of web apps and APIs. Built on the legacy AppSpider engine, InsightAppSec integrates seamlessly with the broader Insight platform (e.g., InsightVM, InsightIDR) to provide end-to-end security visibility across assets.

Features:

• Dynamic scanning for traditional web apps and APIs using the "Universal Translator" engine
• CI/CD integrations for Jenkins, GitHub Actions, and more
• Attack replay capability to validate findings with precision
• Role-based dashboards, risk scoring, and compliance reporting

Pros:

• User-friendly interface and strong integration with other Rapid7 security tools.
• Solid coverage of legacy and modern applications with support for complex client-side technologies.
• Attack replay helps teams reproduce and remediate vulnerabilities quickly.
• Offers centralized management features for scaling across large application portfolios.

Cons:

• Not Built for Continuous Security: Performs point-in-time scans intended for compliance checks, leaving APIs unmonitored between scans and increasing breach risk.
• High Infrastructure and Operational Overhead: Requires dedicated scan engines and frequent rescans, leading to inflated costs and slower delivery cycles.
• Delayed Onboarding: On-prem deployment, manual auth setup, and complex configs extend time-to-value, delaying security across environments.
• Limited API Depth: Scans focus on traditional web vulnerabilities. Lacks automation for authentication or support for business logic testing, leaving modern API threats undetected.
• Static Payloads and Profiles: Uses fixed test templates, which don’t adapt to application context causing blind spots and missed critical issues.
• Manual Triage and Friction: Security and developer teams spend excessive time deciphering generic reports and reconfiguring scans, slowing remediation and increasing production risk.
• Crawler-Dependent Coverage: Misses internal or inactive endpoints, especially those behind auth, leading to visibility gaps attackers can exploit.
• No Runtime Monitoring or Drift Detection: Without ongoing telemetry or inventory validation, API changes go unnoticed, increasing compliance and security risk.

Pricing:

Custom pricing; estimated starting range from $20K annually. Free 30-day trial available.

G2 Rating: 4.3/5

Best For:

Enterprises seeking a full-featured DAST platform that integrates with broader vulnerability and detection programs.

8. Qualys Web Application Scanning (WAS)

Overview:

Qualys WAS is a cloud-based DAST tool within the Qualys Cloud Platform. It is engineered for enterprise-grade vulnerability scanning of web apps and APIs, with a primary focus on coverage for compliance and risk reduction across large-scale digital environments.

Features:

• Scanning of authenticated and unauthenticated web applications
• REST and SOAP API scanning via imported definitions
• Centralized dashboard integrated with Qualys's asset management and TruRisk scoring
• Compliance-ready reporting templates (e.g., PCI DSS, OWASP)

Pros:

• Mature, scalable solution for managing hundreds or thousands of apps across complex infrastructures.
• Reliable scanner with relatively low false-positive rates.
• Fully cloud-managed, with continuously updated vulnerability databases.
• Integrates well with existing Qualys vulnerability management workflows.

Cons:

• Not Built for API-First Security: Testing is retrofitted onto a web-app framework, missing deep logic flaws and modern API design patterns. Critical API threats often go untested.
• High Total Cost of Ownership: Pricing stacks across multiple Qualys modules (WAS, VMDR, EASM, etc.), making API testing expensive and TCO hard to predict.
• Complex Setup and Integration: Full deployment requires configuring multiple applications and connectors. Rollout can take months, delaying API security coverage.
• Fragmented API Inventory: Endpoint discovery relies on a patchwork of asset crawlers, gateway imports, and manual spec uploads. Internal and low-traffic APIs are frequently missed.
• Limited Payload Customization: Uses static payload libraries with no dynamic adaptation based on business context, user roles, or real-time application behavior.
• Manual Ops Drain Productivity: Teams must manage API catalogs manually, run separate scans, and sift through mixed findings without contextual developer mapping or payload replay.
• Misses Advanced Threats: Stateful, multi-step, or chained API attacks are out of scope. Testing is limited to single-request simulations with OWASP Top 10 coverage.
• No Runtime Monitoring or Drift Detection: API security is confined to scheduled scans. New endpoints and attack behaviors go unnoticed until the next scan.
• Incomplete CI/CD Coverage: While CI integration exists, testing occurs only at scheduled points, with no inline validation at the pull-request or commit level, early-stage risks persist.

Pricing:

Starts around $2,195 per app/year. Pricing varies based on bundle and usage.

G2 Rating: 4.4/5

Best For:

Large enterprises needing scalable web app security with compliance-grade reporting and integration into legacy vulnerability management ecosystems.

9. Checkmarx One (DAST Module)

Overview:

Checkmarx One is an enterprise application security platform combining SAST, SCA, IAST, and DAST. The DAST module provides black-box scanning capabilities that correlate with static findings, helping security teams prioritize exploitable vulnerabilities and align remediation efforts.

Features:

• Black-box dynamic testing of web apps and APIs
• Authentication handling and Swagger/OpenAPI import for API scans
• Correlation engine that links DAST and SAST results to pinpoint code-level issues
• Unified dashboard and policy enforcement across testing types

Pros:

• Centralized visibility of static and dynamic security issues.
• Risk scoring and correlation features help prioritize critical issues more effectively.
• Tight integration into developer ecosystems through CI/CD and ticketing tools.
• Strong support for enterprise governance, access control, and audit logging.

Cons:

• API coverage is narrower than tools built specifically for complex API security and logic testing.
• DAST capabilities are newer and may lack advanced detection techniques found in standalone solutions.
• Initial setup and fine-tuning can be time-consuming due to platform complexity.
• Costs increase significantly if only DAST is needed but bundled with broader platform licensing.

Pricing:

Enterprise custom pricing. Typically bundled with Checkmarx One licensing based on the number of apps/modules.

G2 Rating: 4.2/5 (Checkmarx overall)

Best For:

Organizations already using Checkmarx for SAST/SCA and seeking integrated dynamic testing and correlated insights in one AppSec platform.

10. Synopsys (WhiteHat Dynamic)

Overview:

Synopsys’s WhiteHat Dynamic (formerly WhiteHat Sentinel) is a managed DAST platform that combines automated scanning with expert human validation. This hybrid approach delivers high-confidence results, especially for organizations needing verified findings and remediation support.

Features:

• Automated and scheduled vulnerability scanning for web applications
• Human validation of all findings before reporting
• Safe-for-production testing
• Reporting portal with trending metrics and compliance mappings

Pros:

• Exceptional accuracy thanks to manual validation of results by security experts.
• Useful for organizations that require audit-ready reporting and compliance artifacts.
• No need to maintain internal scanning infrastructure or engines.
• Testing includes nuanced vulnerabilities that automated-only scanners may miss.

Cons:

• Results may take longer to arrive compared to automated-only tools, limiting real-time CI/CD integration.
• Less developer-centric; findings are often shared in external reports rather than integrated issue trackers.
• API testing capabilities are not deeply tailored to GraphQL or complex modern APIs.
• Higher cost structure due to inclusion of expert analysis and reporting.

Pricing:

Subscription-based, priced per app or URL. Costs are typically in the five-figure range annually. Custom quotes provided based on scope.

G2 Rating: 4.3/5

Best For:

Organizations in highly regulated industries or those seeking high-assurance DAST results with expert remediation guidance, particularly when outsourcing dynamic testing to a trusted vendor.

API Security beyond DAST: Unified API Security 

DAST tools are excellent for black-box testing of applications and APIs, but they were never designed to solve every API security problem. Traditional DAST engines usually rely on static inputs, such as Swagger or Postman collections, and try to “scan” whatever surface they can see. For modern APIs, especially internal or machine-to-machine APIs, that often means:

• Limited coverage for undocumented, shadow, or orphaned endpoints
• Little understanding of business logic, such as how real users and services interact with the API over time

Some of the most critical API issues, like Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA), depend on both request structure and user-specific behavior. Classic DAST can sometimes probe for these, but without visibility into real traffic and real identities, many of these flaws are hard to reliably detect and prioritize.

This is where runtime API security comes in. These platforms don’t replace DAST or API testing they complement them by observing live traffic to provide:

• Continuous API discovery – Finding APIs that never made it into documentation, including internal and third-party services.
• Authorization anomaly detection – Monitoring calls across users and roles to spot horizontal and vertical privilege abuses.
• Context-aware risk prioritization – Tying issues back to specific users, services, or repositories so teams know what to fix first.

Runtime detection and protection are not API testing in the strict sense; they give security teams a live, contextual view of actual risk in production, while DAST and SAST show where risk might exist under test.

Levo’s platform follows this “best of both worlds” model: it blends deep API runtime intelligence with automated testing workflows, enabling insights from real traffic to discover gaps, generate better tests, and reduce time-to-remediate. For organizations that rely heavily on APIs to power digital experiences, combining DAST-based testing with runtime API visibility is becoming essential, not optional.

Benefits of using DAST Tools

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) offers several key advantages for security and engineering teams, particularly when integrated into CI/CD pipelines and broader AppSec strategies.

1. Real-World Attack Simulation

DAST tools simulate attacks the way an external attacker would. By sending crafted payloads to a running application, they test how the app responds in a real deployment environment.

Example: A DAST scanner might identify an SQL injection in a login field that static analysis missed due to obfuscated code or third-party library use.

2. Language and Framework Agnostic

Because DAST operates externally on the application, it does not depend on the programming language, framework, or access to source code.

Example: Whether your frontend is React or Angular and backend is in Java or Python, the same DAST scanner can test the complete app without needing code visibility.

3. Identifies Runtime-Only Vulnerabilities

DAST tools uncover vulnerabilities that only appear during execution, such as misconfigured web servers, insecure redirects, or improper session handling, which are often invisible to SAST.

Example: A misconfigured HTTP header (e.g., missing X-Content-Type-Options) that can be exploited at runtime would be caught by DAST but not by code scanners.

4. Reduces Security Bottlenecks in Development

Modern DAST tools integrate with CI/CD pipelines, allowing automated scans during development and pre-release. This shortens feedback loops and helps developers resolve issues early.

Example: Tools like StackHawk and Bright embed scans into GitHub Actions or Jenkins builds, allowing developers to receive real-time vulnerability alerts.

5. Supports Regulatory Compliance

DAST solutions help demonstrate due diligence in application security and support compliance reporting for standards like OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, HIPAA, and SOC 2.

Example: Regular DAST scans that produce documented reports can be presented during audits to demonstrate application-layer security controls.

6. Complements SAST, SCA, and WAF

While not a silver bullet, DAST provides external testing coverage that complements static and dependency-based analysis, and validates the effectiveness of WAF rules.

Example: A DAST test may bypass a poorly configured WAF and uncover vulnerabilities a SAST tool missed due to complex build environments.

7. Continuous Improvement Through Automation

With scheduled or triggered scans, DAST can continuously assess new code deployments, enabling organizations to track security posture trends and avoid regression.

Example: Weekly scans across dozens of apps can feed into dashboards tracking open vs. resolved vulnerabilities by team or business unit.

Why is Levo the best choice for API DAST?

Levo delivers API-first, CI/CD-native dynamic testing that meets the demands of modern development without slowing velocity or compromising security. Its automated, intelligent approach to API pentesting enables organizations to stay ahead of attackers while accelerating release cycles.

1. Continuous, Developer-Integrated Testing: Levo runs automated API pentests directly in staging and pre-production environments, validating security on every commit. Developers receive real-time, actionable findings in their workflows, helping fix issues early without breaking pipelines.

2. Comprehensive API Coverage: Whether internal, external, or partner APIs, Levo continuosly discovers and tests every endpoint, eliminating blind spots and reducing the risk of breaches across your entire API surface.

3. Precise, Context-Rich Remediation: Findings are not only validated but also regenerated with real payloads, mapped to services, environments, and code owners. This speeds up remediation and makes each release stronger than the last.

4. CI/CD-Native Execution: Levo’s test runner executes in parallel with builds and only blocks on critical risks. This ensures security testing never delays release cycles while still enforcing meaningful risk thresholds.

5. Runtime-Aware Testing: Levo enhances traditional DAST with runtime telemetry, capturing data flows and authorization behavior in real time. This visibility powers more accurate testing and enables rapid, targeted incident response when needed.

6. Freeing Up Security Teams: By automating repetitive pentesting tasks, Levo gives AppSec and DevSecOps teams the space to focus on threat modeling, policy tuning, and strategic improvements instead of chasing noisy reports.

In short, Levo is not just another scanner. It's an intelligent security layer purpose built for APIs, capable of detecting flaws others miss, and designed to align security and engineering efforts toward reducing risk and accelerating remediation.

Conclusion

As digital ecosystems become increasingly interconnected through APIs and web applications, the need for comprehensive dynamic security testing has never been more urgent. DAST tools continue to play a vital role in uncovering exploitable vulnerabilities in real world conditions often serving as the last line of defense before code reaches production.

However, not all DAST solutions are created equal. Legacy scanners may fall short in modern, complex API environments. On the other hand, tools that integrate seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, offer actionable results, and understand runtime context, especially in microservices heavy architectures, are proving far more effective in helping teams shift security left.

For leaders seeking coverage beyond the basics, tools that combine API aware scanning, business logic validation, and runtime correlation can offer significant strategic value. Platforms like Levo, purpose built for API DAST, provide visibility where others cannot bring security closer to development and reduce risk without slowing innovation.

‍Book your demo today

With scheduled or triggered scans, DAST can continuously assess new code deployments, enabling organizations to track security posture trends and avoid regression.

Example: Weekly scans across dozens of apps can feed into dashboards tracking open vs. resolved vulnerabilities by team or business unit.

Why is Levo the best choice for API DAST?

Levo delivers API-first, CI/CD-native dynamic testing that meets the demands of modern development without slowing velocity or compromising security. Its automated, intelligent approach to API pentesting enables organizations to stay ahead of attackers while accelerating release cycles.

1. Continuous, Developer-Integrated Testing: Levo runs automated API pentests directly in staging and pre-production environments, validating security on every commit. Developers receive real-time, actionable findings in their workflows, helping fix issues early without breaking pipelines.

2. Comprehensive API Coverage: Whether internal, external, or partner APIs, Levo continuously discovers and tests every endpoint, eliminating blind spots and reducing the risk of breaches across your entire API surface.

3. Precise, Context-Rich Remediation: Findings are not only validated but also regenerated with real payloads, mapped to services, environments, and code owners. This speeds up remediation and makes each release stronger than the last.

4. CI/CD-Native Execution: Levo’s test runner executes in parallel with builds and only blocks on critical risks. This ensures security testing never delays release cycles while still enforcing meaningful risk thresholds.

5. Runtime-Aware Testing: Levo enhances traditional DAST with runtime telemetry, capturing data flows and authorization behavior in real time. This visibility powers more accurate testing and enables rapid, targeted incident response when needed.

6. Freeing Up Security Teams: By automating repetitive pentesting tasks, Levo gives AppSec and DevSecOps teams the space to focus on threat modeling, policy tuning, and strategic improvements instead of chasing noisy reports.

In short, Levo is not just another scanner. It's an intelligent security layer purpose built for APIs, capable of detecting flaws others miss, and designed to align security and engineering efforts toward reducing risk and accelerating remediation.

Conclusion

As digital ecosystems become increasingly interconnected through APIs and web applications, the need for comprehensive dynamic security testing has never been more urgent. DAST tools continue to play a vital role in uncovering exploitable vulnerabilities in real world conditions often serving as the last line of defense before code reaches production.

However, not all DAST solutions are created equal. Legacy scanners may fall short in modern, complex API environments. On the other hand, tools that integrate seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, offer actionable results, and understand runtime context, especially in microservices heavy architectures, are proving far more effective in helping teams shift security left.

For leaders seeking coverage beyond the basics, tools that combine API aware scanning, business logic validation, and runtime correlation can offer significant strategic value. Platforms like Levo, purpose built for API DAST, provide visibility where others cannot bring security closer to development and reduce risk without slowing innovation.

‍Book your demo today