Our 2025 SAST Accuracy report provides an open look at how today’s SAST tools really perform.
False positives. Missed logic flaws. Missing context that results in 25 JIRA tickets. Sound familiar?
Most SAST tools promise to catch security issues early, but our latest benchmark shows that accuracy—measurable accuracy in the context of real code—is often the missing piece. How do we define accuracy? In the simplest terms, it’s the ability to detect real, complex security issues being introduced into a codebase.
In head-to-head public tests across four languages (Ruby, Python, C#, and Java), we evaluated how five leading SAST solutions performed against known vulnerabilities, from OWASP staples like SQLi and XSS to trickier logic flaws like IDOR and broken authentication.
The results were eye-opening. While some tools did well with classic patterns, most struggled with context-aware issues—the ones that real attackers exploit and legacy tools often miss. A few even failed to flag the most basic categories, despite default configurations and no tuning.
This isn’t just a comparison. It’s a wake-up call for teams relying on SAST tools that struggle to find anything of value or have suffered from hard-to-pattern-match vulnerabilities like IDOR or enumeration flaws. Contextual Security Analysis is a whole new way to do SAST and, excitingly, a way more accurate approach.
If you care about catching what matters—and not wasting time on what doesn’t—download the 2025 SAST Accuracy Report. It’s a practical look at how top tools stack up, and what accuracy really means in the real world.
👉 Explore more at dryrun.security
