IAST sits in an awkward spot in the AppSec toolchain. It's not SAST, which scans code before it runs. It's not DAST, which hammers your app from the outside. IAST instruments the running application and watches what actually happens: which code paths execute, where tainted data flows, which sinks get hit. The result is fewer false positives and vulnerabilities that are grounded in real execution context.
The category has matured significantly. Early IAST agents were notorious for performance overhead and language support gaps. Today's tools range from tightly integrated observability-native solutions to managed services with expert teams behind them, to AI-driven platforms that don't just find vulnerabilities but fix them automatically. The use cases have diverged too. Some tools belong in your CI/CD pipeline. Others belong in production. A few try to do both.
This roundup covers six tools that fall under the IAST umbrella in 2026. They vary widely in philosophy, from pure runtime instrumentation to unified white-box plus black-box platforms that blur the IAST/DAST boundary entirely. One of them is not really an IAST tool in the traditional sense at all. We'll call that out. The goal here is to help you figure out which one fits your stack, your team size, and your threat model.
See All Interactive Application Security Testing Vendors.
The full Interactive Application Security Testing market mapped by company-size fit, deployment type, NIST coverage, and pricing. No analyst paywall.
Datadog Runtime Code Analysis is IAST built for teams that are already living inside the Datadog platform. The core value proposition is not the IAST capability in isolation. It's the fact that you get runtime vulnerability detection sitting directly alongside your APM traces, logs, and service maps. When a tainted data flow hits a SQL injection sink during a test run, you see it in the same interface where you're already watching latency and error rates. That context collapse is genuinely useful for developers who don't want to context-switch into a separate security tool.
The tool instruments applications to monitor code execution and data flow in real time, detecting issues like injection vulnerabilities and insecure configurations as they manifest during actual execution. It's part of Datadog's Code Security suite, which also includes SAST, SCA, and IaC scanning. If you're already paying for Datadog and want to add application security without onboarding a new vendor, this is the path of least resistance. The NIST coverage spans ID.RA and PR.PS, which maps well to risk identification and platform hardening workflows.
The ideal adopter here is a mid-market to enterprise engineering team that has standardized on Datadog for observability and wants security findings surfaced in the same pane of glass. DevSecOps teams running cloud-native workloads with CI/CD pipelines will get the most out of the continuous runtime analysis. The cloud-only deployment model means this is not an option for air-gapped or on-premises environments.
The trade-off to understand: Datadog IAST is strongest when you're already deep in the Datadog ecosystem. If you're not, you're paying for an observability platform to get an IAST feature, which is a hard sell to a security budget. Language and framework support is also worth verifying before committing, as IAST agents are notoriously uneven across runtimes. And like all IAST tools, coverage depends on how much of your application actually gets exercised during the monitored period.
Coder
Coder is not an IAST tool. Let's be direct about that. It's a self-hosted development environment platform that provisions workspaces via Terraform and enforces governance over AI coding agents. It appears in this category likely because of its DevSecOps positioning and its role in securing the development environment itself, which is a legitimate concern but a different problem than runtime vulnerability detection.
What Coder actually does is keep source code inside your security perimeter while giving developers and AI agents fast, reproducible environments. The Agent Boundaries feature controls what AI coding agents like Claude or Gemini can access and do within a workspace. If your threat model includes AI-assisted development introducing vulnerabilities or exfiltrating code, Coder addresses that at the environment layer. It supports cloud, on-premises, and air-gapped deployments, which makes it one of the few tools in this roundup that works in classified or highly regulated network environments.
The ideal user is a mid-market or enterprise organization that has adopted AI coding assistants and is now asking hard questions about data governance and code security. If you're running a SOC or AppSec program and your developers are using Copilot or Claude against production codebases, Coder gives you a governed sandbox for that activity. The Terraform-based templating also solves the "works on my machine" problem for security-sensitive onboarding.
The gotcha: Coder requires real infrastructure investment to operate. You're running a platform, not installing an agent. The hybrid deployment model means your team needs to manage it. If you're looking for something that finds SQL injection in your running app, this is not that tool. Evaluate it as a secure development platform, not as an IAST solution, and it makes a lot more sense.
Black Duck Seeker IAST
Black Duck Seeker is one of the more mature IAST products in this roundup, and its active verification technology is the feature that sets it apart from passive instrumentation approaches. Most IAST tools observe and report. Seeker goes further: when it identifies a potential vulnerability, it automatically retests to confirm whether the issue is actually exploitable. That validation step is significant because it directly attacks the false positive problem that makes AppSec findings hard to prioritize.
Seeker's API discovery capability is worth highlighting separately. It finds REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs, including microservices exposed via gRPC, by discovering specifications rather than relying on manual inventory. In large enterprise applications where API sprawl is a real problem, this matters. The integration with Black Duck Binary Analysis adds SCA-style open source vulnerability detection on top of the IAST findings, which gives you a more complete picture of risk in a single tool. Compliance reporting covers OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, GDPR, and CWE/SANS Top 25 out of the box.
Seeker fits best in organizations running complex web application portfolios with significant API surface area, particularly those in regulated industries where PCI DSS or GDPR compliance reporting is a recurring requirement. The CI/CD integration via native plugins and web APIs makes it viable for teams that want security findings gated into their pipeline without manual scan triggers. It works across cloud, on-premises, and container-based environments.
The trade-off is vendor lock-in within the Black Duck ecosystem. The binary analysis integration is specifically Black Duck Binary Analysis, and the hub integration ties you to that platform. If you're already a Synopsys/Black Duck shop, this is a natural extension. If you're not, you're potentially buying into a broader platform to get the full value. Also worth noting: active verification means the tool is doing more than passive observation, so test environment isolation is important to avoid unintended side effects during validation.
Contrast One
Contrast One is a managed service, not just a tool. That distinction matters. The platform embeds lightweight sensors in applications for runtime vulnerability detection and API monitoring, but the differentiator is the expert team that comes with it. Policy creation, triage, zero-day response, compliance reporting, and program administration are handled by Contrast's team, not yours. If your AppSec program is understaffed or you're building one from scratch, that operational support changes the calculus significantly.
The zero-day rapid response capability is notable. When a vulnerability like Log4Shell or Spring4Shell drops, the Contrast One team is supposed to be actively working your exposure, not waiting for you to figure out your blast radius. The open source risk protection component adds analysis of attacks against your dependencies and recommendations on critical alerts, which overlaps with SCA but is framed around active threat context rather than just CVE scores. NIST coverage is the broadest in this roundup, spanning ID.RA, ID.IM, PR.DS, PR.PS, and DE.CM.
Contrast One is best suited for organizations that want runtime application security but don't have the internal headcount to run it properly. A 3-person AppSec team supporting 50 developers will get more leverage from a managed service than from a self-operated platform that requires constant tuning. The multi-cloud deployment support and CI/CD integration mean it fits modern cloud-native architectures without requiring infrastructure changes.
The trade-off is cost and control. Managed services cost more than self-operated tools, and you're dependent on Contrast's team for response quality and SLA adherence. The lack of listed third-party integrations in the database is worth investigating before you commit, particularly if you need findings flowing into a specific SIEM or ticketing system. Role-based training and playbooks are included, which helps with team enablement, but you're still building dependency on an external team for core security operations.
Prancer Unified White-Box + Black-Box
Prancer takes a different architectural bet than the other tools here. Instead of pure runtime instrumentation, it correlates static analysis findings with dynamic validation to answer one specific question: is this vulnerability actually exploitable? The SwarmHack engine performs automated web and API penetration testing against findings identified through white-box analysis, filtering out theoretical vulnerabilities that can't be triggered at runtime. The result is a prioritization list grounded in confirmed exploitability rather than CVSS scores.
The unified workflow across SAST, DAST, IaC scanning, and cloud posture management in a single platform is ambitious. Most organizations run these as separate tools with separate findings that never get correlated. Prancer's approach of ingesting from repositories, CI/CD pipelines, and cloud accounts and then correlating code findings with exposed API routes is genuinely useful for teams drowning in disconnected scanner output. MITRE ATT&CK and OCSF framework mapping adds audit and compliance value on top of the technical findings.
This tool fits DevSecOps engineers and security architects who are frustrated with alert fatigue from multiple disconnected scanners. If you're running SAST, DAST, and cloud posture tools separately and spending significant time manually correlating findings, Prancer's consolidation play is worth evaluating. The exploit-based prioritization is particularly valuable for teams that need to communicate risk to engineering leads in terms of actual impact rather than theoretical severity.
The gotcha is complexity. Consolidating SAST, DAST, IaC, and cloud posture into one platform means a significant onboarding investment and a single point of failure for your scanning program. The AI-driven SwarmHack validation is powerful but also means the tool is actively probing your application, so test environment boundaries need to be clearly defined. No listed third-party integrations in the database is a gap worth investigating, especially for teams that need findings in Jira, ServiceNow, or a SIEM.
Codesecure Solutions CodeSec AI-Fixing Agent
CodeSec AI-Fixing Agent addresses a problem that most AppSec tools ignore entirely: the gap between finding a vulnerability and actually fixing it. Traditional IAST and SAST tools produce findings. Developers then have to interpret those findings, understand the root cause, write a fix, test it, and deploy it. That cycle takes weeks in most organizations. CodeSec's agent is designed to collapse that timeline by generating context-aware patches and applying them automatically, with sandboxed validation before deployment.
The environment-aware learning component is what separates this from generic AI code generation. The agent adapts fixes to the organization's specific infrastructure context and security policies rather than producing generic remediation suggestions. The continuous post-deployment monitoring verifies that fixes actually hold and adapts to new attack patterns, which addresses the common failure mode where a patch closes one vector but leaves related issues open. The NIST coverage includes RS.MI (Incident Mitigation), which reflects the tool's positioning as a response and remediation tool rather than just a detection tool.
This tool is most relevant for organizations with a large backlog of known vulnerabilities and insufficient developer bandwidth to work through them. If your AppSec team is generating findings faster than engineering can remediate them, automated fix generation changes the throughput equation. It's also relevant for teams that have adopted AI-assisted development broadly and are comfortable with AI-generated code changes entering their codebase.
The trade-off is trust. Automated patch application to production code is a significant operational risk if the sandboxed validation misses edge cases or the context-aware learning misunderstands the environment. The tool is cloud-only, which limits its use in air-gapped environments. There are no listed third-party integrations, which raises questions about how findings flow in and how fixes flow out into existing CI/CD pipelines. Before deploying this in a production remediation workflow, you'd want to run it in observation mode for an extended period and audit a sample of generated fixes manually.
How to Choose the Right Tool
IAST tool selection is not one-size-fits-all. The right choice depends on your existing stack, your team's operational capacity, your deployment environment, and what you actually need the tool to do. A managed service makes sense for a lean team. A platform consolidator makes sense if you're drowning in disconnected scanner output. An observability-native tool makes sense if you're already paying for that platform. Here are the criteria that matter most.
Existing platform investment: If you're already running Datadog for observability, adding Datadog IAST is a low-friction decision. If you're a Black Duck shop, Seeker extends naturally. Buying a new platform to get an IAST feature is a harder sell. Start by auditing what you already have and what integrates cleanly.
Team operational capacity: Running an IAST agent in production requires tuning, triage, and ongoing maintenance. If your AppSec team is small, a managed service like Contrast One offloads that operational burden. If you have the headcount and want control, a self-operated tool gives you more flexibility but demands more from your team.
Deployment environment constraints: Air-gapped or classified networks eliminate most cloud-only tools immediately. Coder is the only tool in this roundup explicitly designed for air-gapped deployments. On-premises requirements also narrow the field significantly. Verify deployment model compatibility before evaluating features.
False positive tolerance: Active verification, like what Seeker provides, reduces false positives by confirming exploitability before surfacing findings. Prancer's SwarmHack does the same through dynamic validation. If your developers are already skeptical of security findings, a tool that validates before reporting will get better adoption than one that floods the backlog with unconfirmed issues.
API and microservices coverage: If your application surface is heavily API-driven, including gRPC, GraphQL, or REST microservices, verify that the tool can discover and instrument those interfaces. Seeker has explicit gRPC and API discovery support. Not all IAST agents handle non-HTTP traffic or service mesh architectures well.
Remediation workflow integration: Detection without remediation is a bottleneck. Consider whether the tool produces findings that flow into your existing ticketing system, or whether it goes further and generates fix guidance or automated patches. CodeSec AI-Fixing Agent is the only tool here that attempts automated remediation. For everyone else, verify Jira, ServiceNow, or SIEM integration before committing.
Compliance reporting requirements: If you're in a regulated industry and need OWASP Top 10, PCI DSS, or GDPR compliance reports on a recurring basis, Seeker has that built in. Contrast One also covers compliance reporting as part of the managed service. Tools without explicit compliance reporting will require you to build that reporting layer yourself.
Scope of the problem you're solving: Be honest about whether you need pure IAST, a unified AppSec platform, a secure development environment, or automated remediation. Prancer is really a SAST plus DAST correlation platform. Coder is a dev environment governance tool. CodeSec is a remediation agent. Buying the wrong category of tool because it's listed under IAST will waste budget and time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between IAST, SAST, and DAST?
SAST analyzes source code statically before execution. DAST attacks a running application from the outside without code access. IAST instruments the running application from the inside, observing actual code execution and data flow during testing or production. IAST typically produces fewer false positives than SAST because findings are grounded in real execution context.
Does IAST require source code access?
Yes, in most implementations. IAST agents instrument the application at the code or bytecode level, which requires access to the runtime environment and typically the application code or compiled artifacts. This distinguishes it from DAST, which operates purely from the outside.
Can IAST tools run in production, or only in test environments?
Most IAST tools are designed to run in both test and production environments, but the risk profile differs. In production, you get real traffic coverage but must account for agent overhead and the risk of active verification techniques triggering unintended behavior. Passive instrumentation is generally safer for production; active verification should be confined to test environments.
How much performance overhead does an IAST agent add?
It varies significantly by tool and language runtime. Java and .NET agents tend to add 5-15% overhead in typical configurations. Some tools allow you to tune instrumentation depth to reduce overhead at the cost of coverage. Always benchmark in a staging environment before deploying to production.
Is IAST a replacement for SAST and DAST, or a complement?
A complement. SAST catches issues early in the development cycle before code runs. DAST finds externally visible vulnerabilities without requiring code access. IAST fills the gap by detecting vulnerabilities that only manifest during execution. Running all three gives you the broadest coverage across the SDLC.
Which IAST tools work in air-gapped or on-premises environments?
Of the tools in this roundup, Coder explicitly supports air-gapped and on-premises deployments. Black Duck Seeker also supports on-premises deployment. Datadog IAST and CodeSec AI-Fixing Agent are cloud-only. Always verify deployment model support before evaluating features, especially in regulated or classified environments.
Conclusion
IAST is a mature category, but the tools in it have diverged significantly in what they actually do. Pure runtime instrumentation, managed security services, unified AppSec platforms, and AI-driven remediation agents all appear under the same label. The first step is being clear about which problem you're actually trying to solve. If you need runtime vulnerability detection integrated with your observability stack, Datadog IAST is the obvious starting point. If you need active verification and API discovery in a regulated environment, Seeker is worth a serious look. If your team is small and you need operational support, Contrast One changes the equation. And if you're spending more time correlating scanner output than fixing vulnerabilities, Prancer's unified approach deserves evaluation. Use the comparison and alternatives features on CybersecTools to put these tools side by side against your specific requirements before you commit to a proof of concept.
Skip the Vendor Demos. Compare Interactive Application Security Testing Tools in 10 Seconds.
Side-by-side features, integrations, and ratings for Interactive Application Security Testing tools.
