Governance and security is a big aspect of CAST Highlight, especially for B2B tools. The first point that stands out is data handling plus PII. It only processes verified data that we already have rights to and does not suggest or ingest our private customer data or documents, so the risk of data leakage is low. Moreover, reviewer information shown includes the company size and industry, with no personal names or emails exposed in the insights unless the reviewer opted in publicly. The second benefit is access controls; our team could set role-based access while using it; analysts can highlight and approve quotes, but only leads can publish to live insights, keeping QA control with us. No random edits go live. The third benefit is audit and compliance; every approved quote has a trail indicating who approved it, which conflict it came from, and the timestamp. Therefore, if a legal or buyer asks where a specific claim originated from, we can prove it. For compliance, we surface peer statements with source links instead of making claims. Governance feels solid, as it works only on verified data, has role-based access, and provides full audit trails back to source reviews, keeping us compliant and defensible with buyers. Overall, the accuracy of CAST Highlight has been strong and reliability is consistent for our use case. The first point is intent matching, which catches the right theme approximately 85 to 90% of the time. For example, if a review says that setup took two weeks, it tags ease of implementation correctly, not just the time. The second thing is strength scoring; high-strength quotes usually read better to buyers, being less vague and providing more specific outcomes. While we still conduct human QA, false positives are low. The third point on accuracy is reviewer context; role, company size, and industry tagging are accurate because it pulls from verified profiles, adding credibility to quotes instead of simply showing generic testimonials. Regarding reliability, consistency in output is vital; the same items receive the same highlight and score every time without random drift, earning our team's trust for bulk work. We have not experienced missed alerts or failure to process new reports. If a new conflict emerges today, highlights will show up on the same day. We do see less reliability for very niche technical jargon, for example, multi-tenant RBAC might get tagged as access control broadly. Also, sentiment can miss sarcasm during easy setups after three months. Some advice for others looking into using CAST Highlight is that it is better in terms of cost compared to other available tools. It is also reliable and helps keep humans in the loop, providing accuracy around 85-90% for intent. Quick QA testing requires five minutes of human intervention before publishing. Additionally, training your team to filter and segment by role-based context is critical. Regarding final thoughts on CAST Highlight, I find it to be a solid tool with some suggestions for improvement. The deduplication strictness is an area we can enhance, and the governance and security are very good. The accuracy of CAST Highlight is also commendable. In terms of pricing, I find it low, and the ROI is high, making it a very scalable tool. I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.
Consultant/Software Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Oct 20, 2022
We are end-users. I'm not too sure which version of the solution we're using. I'm pretty certain that we are using the latest version. We do get an agent that we send to the targets. They install it locally within the system. The agent is run locally, and the agent gives some CSV outputs, and those outputs are uploaded to the SaaS portal. From there, we get the insights. They have their own training academy, where you could learn how to use CAST Highlight. I would really recommend to new users that they go through the training academy to understand the product. CAST has a certain way of working, which might not be the most obvious if you look at it from the outside. There is a little learning curve that people should be aware of. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Direction Digital Workplace & Socles at a insurance company with 51-200 employees
Real User
May 17, 2022
Before using CAST Highlight I would recommend others to have a clear view, and overview of the quality of code on which they can communicate with other industries or with customers. I rate CAST Highlight a seven out of ten.
I would advise others to really do their homework and understand the use case and how CAST Highlight is going to help them. Otherwise, they will only be spending money, and they may not really see its value. It is a pretty strong engineering tool, but unless you are really clear about the use case and the outcomes, you will not get a value out of it. If you do not know the outcomes and what do you want to do with the tool, you will get the dashboards or output, but you won't be able to consume and benefit from it. For example, a fantastic use case is when you know for sure that a customer is looking to migrate ten applications from on-prem to cloud and wants to know how much code is ready for moving to the cloud versus how much refactoring they need to do. If you're looking for a code change estimate from on-prem to on-prem or some other application, CAST Highlight may not be a good tool for such a use case. I would rate CAST Highlight an eight out of ten.
Advisor Solution Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Apr 23, 2020
In general, this solution is easy to set up, easy to get started, easy to use, and easy to integrate, but the usability is not as high as that of Veracode. It would be great if it were more developer-friendly and it provided more information on how to resolve the problems that it discovers. I have seen other tools that do a better job of providing reports and guidance to the developers. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.
Portfolio-level insights for app modernization, AI readiness, tech debt, OSS risks
CAST Highlight is a SaaS software intelligence technology that delivers rapid, fact-based insights across your entire application portfolio. By automatically analyzing the source code of hundreds or thousands of applications, CAST Highlight helps organizations assess cloud maturity, AI & Agentic readiness, software health, open source risk, resiliency, technical debt, and sustainability from a single...
Governance and security is a big aspect of CAST Highlight, especially for B2B tools. The first point that stands out is data handling plus PII. It only processes verified data that we already have rights to and does not suggest or ingest our private customer data or documents, so the risk of data leakage is low. Moreover, reviewer information shown includes the company size and industry, with no personal names or emails exposed in the insights unless the reviewer opted in publicly. The second benefit is access controls; our team could set role-based access while using it; analysts can highlight and approve quotes, but only leads can publish to live insights, keeping QA control with us. No random edits go live. The third benefit is audit and compliance; every approved quote has a trail indicating who approved it, which conflict it came from, and the timestamp. Therefore, if a legal or buyer asks where a specific claim originated from, we can prove it. For compliance, we surface peer statements with source links instead of making claims. Governance feels solid, as it works only on verified data, has role-based access, and provides full audit trails back to source reviews, keeping us compliant and defensible with buyers. Overall, the accuracy of CAST Highlight has been strong and reliability is consistent for our use case. The first point is intent matching, which catches the right theme approximately 85 to 90% of the time. For example, if a review says that setup took two weeks, it tags ease of implementation correctly, not just the time. The second thing is strength scoring; high-strength quotes usually read better to buyers, being less vague and providing more specific outcomes. While we still conduct human QA, false positives are low. The third point on accuracy is reviewer context; role, company size, and industry tagging are accurate because it pulls from verified profiles, adding credibility to quotes instead of simply showing generic testimonials. Regarding reliability, consistency in output is vital; the same items receive the same highlight and score every time without random drift, earning our team's trust for bulk work. We have not experienced missed alerts or failure to process new reports. If a new conflict emerges today, highlights will show up on the same day. We do see less reliability for very niche technical jargon, for example, multi-tenant RBAC might get tagged as access control broadly. Also, sentiment can miss sarcasm during easy setups after three months. Some advice for others looking into using CAST Highlight is that it is better in terms of cost compared to other available tools. It is also reliable and helps keep humans in the loop, providing accuracy around 85-90% for intent. Quick QA testing requires five minutes of human intervention before publishing. Additionally, training your team to filter and segment by role-based context is critical. Regarding final thoughts on CAST Highlight, I find it to be a solid tool with some suggestions for improvement. The deduplication strictness is an area we can enhance, and the governance and security are very good. The accuracy of CAST Highlight is also commendable. In terms of pricing, I find it low, and the ROI is high, making it a very scalable tool. I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.
My overall product rating is six out of ten.
I am working with the latest version of CAST Highlight. Overall, I rate CAST Highlight an eight out of ten.
We are end-users. I'm not too sure which version of the solution we're using. I'm pretty certain that we are using the latest version. We do get an agent that we send to the targets. They install it locally within the system. The agent is run locally, and the agent gives some CSV outputs, and those outputs are uploaded to the SaaS portal. From there, we get the insights. They have their own training academy, where you could learn how to use CAST Highlight. I would really recommend to new users that they go through the training academy to understand the product. CAST has a certain way of working, which might not be the most obvious if you look at it from the outside. There is a little learning curve that people should be aware of. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Before using CAST Highlight I would recommend others to have a clear view, and overview of the quality of code on which they can communicate with other industries or with customers. I rate CAST Highlight a seven out of ten.
I would advise others to really do their homework and understand the use case and how CAST Highlight is going to help them. Otherwise, they will only be spending money, and they may not really see its value. It is a pretty strong engineering tool, but unless you are really clear about the use case and the outcomes, you will not get a value out of it. If you do not know the outcomes and what do you want to do with the tool, you will get the dashboards or output, but you won't be able to consume and benefit from it. For example, a fantastic use case is when you know for sure that a customer is looking to migrate ten applications from on-prem to cloud and wants to know how much code is ready for moving to the cloud versus how much refactoring they need to do. If you're looking for a code change estimate from on-prem to on-prem or some other application, CAST Highlight may not be a good tool for such a use case. I would rate CAST Highlight an eight out of ten.
In general, this solution is easy to set up, easy to get started, easy to use, and easy to integrate, but the usability is not as high as that of Veracode. It would be great if it were more developer-friendly and it provided more information on how to resolve the problems that it discovers. I have seen other tools that do a better job of providing reports and guidance to the developers. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.