AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Look for a concrete, named language/framework support list; a vendor vague about instrumentation mechanism or language coverage is a real risk for a technology-specific control like RASP.
RASP runs inside the application's own request path, so overhead is a first-order concern — demand a real, customer-referenced number, not a qualitative "minimal impact" claim.
A staged monitor-then-block rollout capability is a real operational maturity signal, reducing the risk of RASP breaking legitimate traffic when first deployed.
RASP's core value proposition is context-aware, low-false-positive detection versus WAF; the vendor should be able to substantiate this with real comparative evidence, not just repeat the claim.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Look for a stated update cadence for new attack-technique coverage; a static, unmaintained detection ruleset ages out of relevance for a runtime security control.
Real APM integration plus an explicit alert-fatigue mitigation strategy (e.g., severity tiering, deduplication) is stronger than a standalone RASP console nobody actually watches.
A unified cross-service view is materially stronger for real microservices deployments than per-service siloed configuration and reporting.
Configurable fail-open/fail-closed behavior matters — a security tool that can take down a production application on its own failure (uncontrolled fail-closed) is a real operational risk worth surfacing explicitly.
Per-instance pricing interacts awkwardly with microservices architectures that may run many small, frequently-scaling instances — ask explicitly how the vendor handles this rather than assuming a monolithic application model.
Strong answers describe real forensic capture depth with a customer example, not just confirmation that the attack was blocked.
Ask for real evidence of PCI assessor acceptance, not just a generic 'PCI-ready' marketing claim.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time alert stream — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
This is a real, common buyer question given the functional overlap between RASP and WAF/API-security products — a vendor should give an honest answer about the boundary and complementarity, not imply a standalone purchase is always necessary.
Press for an actual number, not just the qualitative claim that RASP is more accurate than a WAF — ask for a specific customer-referenced false-positive rate.
Developer-facing integration (not just a security-team dashboard) materially speeds real remediation of the vulnerable code paths RASP is actively protecting rather than just alerting on.
Ask for an honest per-environment coverage breakdown; uneven RASP behavior across deployment environments is a common real gap a vendor should disclose rather than obscure.