Not all website security scanners are the same. Some scan 200 controls but report 40% false positives. Some require agent installation and a week of configuration before the first result. Some produce reports so dense they are useful only to penetration testers, not to the developers who need to act on them. If you are evaluating security scanners for your web application, here are the criteria that actually matter — and what "good" looks like for each one.
1. OWASP Top 10 Coverage
The OWASP Top 10 is the industry-standard reference for the most critical web application security risks. A scanner that does not explicitly map its checks to the current OWASP Top 10 (2021) is either incomplete or obscuring its coverage gaps. The 2021 version introduced three new categories — Insecure Design, Software and Data Integrity Failures, and Server-Side Request Forgery — that many older scanners do not cover.
What good looks like: Explicit OWASP Top 10 (2021) mapping with checks for each category, including A01 (Broken Access Control), A02 (Cryptographic Failures), A03 (Injection), A04 (Insecure Design), A05 (Security Misconfiguration), A06 (Vulnerable Components), A07 (Authentication Failures), A08 (Integrity Failures), A09 (Logging Failures), and A10 (SSRF).
2. Scan Speed
Enterprise-grade scanners often take hours to complete a full assessment, which makes them impractical for integration into development workflows or for quick evaluations. A scanner that takes 45 minutes to return results is not going to be used regularly. Speed matters not because thoroughness should be sacrificed, but because a fast scanner gets used — and a scanner that sits unused provides no security value.
What good looks like: Complete scan results in under 10 minutes for a typical web application. Results that arrive in 2–5 minutes are practical for on-demand use by developers and security teams alike.
3. False Positive Rate
A scanner that flags everything as critical trains teams to ignore its output. False positives waste engineering time, erode trust in the tool, and can mask real findings when teams start filtering alerts. The flip side is also true: a scanner calibrated to minimize false positives at the cost of coverage produces false confidence. The goal is precision — findings that are actionable and representative of real risk.
What good looks like: Findings backed by observable evidence from the actual response — not speculative pattern-matching. Each finding should describe what was observed (e.g., an error message containing SQL syntax, a cookie response without the Secure attribute) rather than inferring vulnerabilities from generic signatures.
4. Remediation Guidance Quality
A vulnerability report that lists findings without explaining how to fix them transfers the research burden to the team that needs to act. For each finding, a good scanner provides: what was found, why it is a risk, and specific steps to remediate. Generic advice ("update your software") is not remediation guidance. Specific advice ("add the HttpOnly flag to the Set-Cookie header in your web server configuration") is.
What good looks like: Per-finding remediation steps that are specific to the vulnerability type, with references to authoritative sources (OWASP, MDN, vendor documentation) and configuration examples where applicable.
5. Report Export and Format
Security findings need to travel beyond the scanner interface. Developers need them in ticketing systems. Management needs them in readable formats. Auditors may require PDF documentation. A scanner that locks findings inside its own interface or produces only raw JSON output creates workflow friction.
What good looks like: PDF export for sharing with stakeholders and auditors, structured output for developer consumption, and clear severity ratings (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info) that facilitate prioritization. The PDF should include executive-readable summaries and technical detail in one document.
6. Ease of Use — No Installation Required
Agent-based scanners that require installation on target servers, browser plugins, or complex network configuration create significant adoption barriers. If using the scanner requires a security team to configure it for each environment, development teams will not use it on their own. DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) scanners that operate from the outside — like an attacker would — require no access to your infrastructure beyond a URL.
What good looks like: Enter a URL, click scan, receive results. No agent installation, no infrastructure access, no configuration required to start. Advanced options (custom headers, IP override for testing staging environments) should be available but not required.
7. Scan History and Trend Tracking
A single scan is a point-in-time snapshot. The security posture of a web application changes with every deployment. Persistent scan history lets teams track whether findings are being remediated, whether new vulnerabilities are being introduced, and how their security posture trends over time. Without history, every scan starts from zero.
What good looks like: All scans stored and retrievable, with timestamps, target URLs, and finding counts. The ability to compare results across scans to identify regressions and track remediation progress.
8. Performance Checks Alongside Security
Security and performance share the same HTTP responses. A scanner that also measures DNS lookup time, Time to First Byte (TTFB), page size, caching headers, and compression gives teams a more complete picture of how their application performs and is configured. These checks are often skipped by pure security scanners, requiring separate tools to complete the picture.
What good looks like: DNS resolution time, TTFB, page weight, HTTP/2 support status, caching header analysis, and compression (gzip/Brotli) detection alongside security findings — in a single scan.
9. Pricing Transparency
Many enterprise security tools require a sales call to get pricing. This is a friction point for smaller teams and independent developers who need to evaluate tools quickly. Transparent, publicly visible pricing lets buyers self-qualify and get started without a sales cycle.
What good looks like: Pricing listed on the public website with clear feature differentiation between tiers. A free tier or trial that provides genuine value — not just a marketing demo — so buyers can evaluate before committing.
How Shieldome Approaches Each Criterion
Shieldome is a DAST security scanner built around these exact criteria. Here is how it performs on each one:
- OWASP Top 10 (2021) coverage — All 10 categories are covered with specific checks mapped to each. A01 through A10, including SSRF (A10) and Integrity Failures (A08), which many scanners skip.
- Scan speed — Scans complete in 2–5 minutes. Results are streamed live as each check completes so you see progress in real time, not just a loading screen.
- 40+ security controls — Injection indicators, access control checks, sensitive file exposure, security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy), cookie attribute analysis, CORS configuration, server version disclosure, directory listing, robots.txt analysis, SRI coverage, debug mode detection, and component version fingerprinting.
- Evidence-based findings — Each finding includes what was observed in the response, not generic pattern matching. Severity is rated Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info with clear criteria.
- PDF export — Every scan produces a downloadable PDF report with executive summary, full findings list with severity, and per-finding remediation guidance. Suitable for auditors and management presentations.
- No installation — Enter a URL and scan. No agents, no plugins, no infrastructure access required. Optional IP override lets you test staging environments behind load balancers by overriding DNS resolution.
- Scan history — All scans stored with timestamps and target URLs. Filter and retrieve previous results to track remediation progress over time.
- Performance checks — DNS lookup time, TTFB, page size, HTTP/2 support, caching header status, and gzip/Brotli compression detection included in every scan alongside security findings.
- Transparent pricing — Pricing is listed on the public site. A free tier is available for evaluation with no sales call required.
Summary Comparison Table
| Criterion | What "Good" Looks Like | Shieldome |
|---|---|---|
| OWASP Top 10 (2021) | All 10 categories, explicit mapping | All 10 categories covered |
| Scan speed | Under 10 minutes; ideally 2–5 min | 2–5 minutes, live-streamed results |
| Control breadth | 40+ distinct checks | 40+ controls across all categories |
| False positive approach | Evidence from actual responses | Response-based, observable evidence |
| Remediation guidance | Specific steps per finding | Per-finding remediation with references |
| PDF export | Professional report with severity | Full PDF with executive summary |
| Installation required | None — URL-based DAST | No installation; enter URL and scan |
| Scan history | All scans stored and filterable | Persistent history with timestamps |
| Performance checks | DNS, TTFB, caching, compression | Included in every scan |
| Pricing transparency | Public pricing, free tier available | Listed on site; free tier available |
Questions to Ask Any Scanner Vendor
When evaluating any security scanner, ask these questions before committing:
- Which specific OWASP Top 10 (2021) categories do you cover, and can you list the individual checks?
- How long does a scan take for a typical single-page web application?
- What does a finding look like? Is it backed by evidence from the actual response?
- Does the scanner produce a PDF report suitable for auditors and management?
- Is there any installation, agent, or infrastructure access required to start scanning?
- Where is scan history stored, and can I filter or compare scans over time?
- What is the pricing, and is there a free tier to evaluate before purchasing?
A scanner that cannot answer all of these questions clearly is either incomplete or actively obscuring its limitations. Use this list as a qualification checklist before starting a trial.
The right scanner is one your team will actually use. That means fast results, clear findings, actionable remediation guidance, and zero setup friction. Try Shieldome free — enter your URL and have results in under 5 minutes, no installation required.
FAQ
What is the difference between DAST and SAST?
DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) scans a running application from the outside, simulating how an attacker would interact with it over HTTP. It does not require access to source code. SAST (Static Application Security Testing) analyzes source code directly, without running the application. DAST finds runtime and configuration vulnerabilities; SAST finds code-level vulnerabilities. Both have value, and they complement each other. Shieldome is a DAST scanner — it works on any web application regardless of the technology stack or whether you have access to the source code.
Can I scan websites I do not own?
No. You should only scan websites you own or have explicit written permission to test. Unauthorized scanning is illegal in most jurisdictions under computer fraud and abuse laws. Always verify authorization before scanning any target.
What is the difference between a vulnerability scanner and a penetration test?
A vulnerability scanner performs automated checks to identify known vulnerability patterns, misconfigurations, and security control gaps. A penetration test involves a human security professional attempting to chain vulnerabilities into actual exploits to demonstrate real-world impact. Scanners are faster, cheaper, and repeatable; penetration tests provide deeper assurance but are resource-intensive. Most security programs use both: scanners for continuous coverage and regression testing, penetration tests for periodic deep assessment.
How often should I scan my website?
At minimum, after every significant deployment. Security misconfigurations and vulnerable components are often introduced during development rather than discovered during it. More frequent scanning — weekly or integrated into a CI/CD pipeline — catches regressions faster. The goal is to reduce the time between a vulnerability being introduced and being discovered and remediated.
Will a security scanner find all vulnerabilities?
No automated scanner finds all vulnerabilities. Business logic flaws, complex access control issues, and chained multi-step exploits typically require human analysis. Scanners provide excellent coverage of known vulnerability patterns, configuration issues, and OWASP Top 10 categories — which represent the most common causes of web application breaches. Think of a scanner as thorough automated coverage, not a substitute for periodic manual review.
Do I need a security scanner if I already use a WAF?
Yes. A WAF (Web Application Firewall) filters malicious traffic; a security scanner tells you what vulnerabilities exist that the WAF needs to protect against. A WAF without knowledge of your underlying vulnerabilities is a mitigation layer with unknown gaps. Regular scanning tells you what those gaps are so you can prioritize remediation alongside WAF tuning.
What should I do first with scan results?
Address Critical and High severity findings first. These represent vulnerabilities where exploitation is straightforward and the impact is significant — SQL injection, missing HSTS on a login page, exposed configuration files with credentials. Medium findings should be addressed in the next sprint cycle. Low and Info findings should be tracked and addressed as part of ongoing maintenance. Use the severity rating as a prioritization signal, not a reason to defer lower-severity findings indefinitely.