SAST vs DAST
See how SAST vs DAST fits local review, which evidence Code Radar produces, where coverage ends, and how trusted findings move into CI.
radar scan . --quickWhat SAST vs DAST means here.
This guide answers sast vs dast directly, separates the concept from adjacent categories, and connects the decision to a practical local review workflow without overstating Code Radar coverage.
Evidence to inspect
Use “SAST vs DAST” as the scope for this decision: verify the input, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.
Coverage and concrete signals
Where SAST and DAST observe different evidence, timing, and blind spots in a delivery workflow.
- Audience: Security-minded developers comparing source analysis with runtime application testing.
- Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.: A side-by-side decision table that separates source findings from runtime observations.
- Boundary: Neither method alone covers every dependency, configuration, runtime, or business-logic risk.
- Workflow: SAST · DAST · source code · runtime behavior
From local signal to shared gate.
SAST vs DAST: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. A side-by-side decision table that separates source findings from runtime observations.
radar scan . --quick
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on highPrimary sources
Validate the workflow on your own code.
Apply this page’s evidence to one real repository. For “SAST vs DAST”, confirm which finding is produced, whether the proposed next step is reproducible, and where local scanning, reports, agents, or CI should stop or expand.