Strategic Implementation Guidance

Successful implementation of either tool—or both—requires strategic planning beyond technical deployment. Start by assessing your organization's development practices, security maturity, and risk tolerance. High-velocity development with continuous deployment might favor IAST's accuracy to minimize false positive disruption. Traditional development cycles with distinct phases might better accommodate SAST's batch analysis model.

Consider your application portfolio characteristics. Diverse technology stacks might challenge IAST agent compatibility while SAST handles heterogeneous environments well. Microservices architectures could benefit from SAST's ability to analyze services independently. Monolithic applications might see better results from IAST's runtime behavior analysis. Legacy applications often require SAST due to IAST runtime requirements.

Plan for tool evolution and complementary usage. Many organizations start with SAST due to easier deployment, then add IAST as testing practices mature. Others begin with IAST for immediate accurate results, later adding SAST for shift-left coverage. The most mature programs use both tools strategically—SAST for early detection and complete coverage, IAST for accuracy and runtime validation.