We performed a comparison between Mend and Checkmarx based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison results: Based on the parameters we compared, Mend comes out ahead of Chechmarx. While both possess flexibility and good vulnerability compliance, Checkmarx’s modular licensing and data search tools leave room for improvement.
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc)."
"The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"Its ease of use and good results are the most valuable."
"Mend has reduced our open-source software vulnerabilities and helped us remediate issues quickly. My company's policy is to ensure that vulnerabilities are fixed before it gets to production."
"The inventory management as well as the ability to identify security vulnerabilities has been the most valuable for our business."
"WhiteSource is unique in the scanning of open-source licenses. Additionally, the vulnerabilities aspect of the solution is a benefit. We don't use WhiteSource in the whole organization, but we use it for some projects. There we receive a sense of the vulnerabilities of the open-source components, which improves our security work. The reports are automated which is useful."
"There are multiple different integrations there. We use Mend for CI/CD that goes through Azure as well. It works seamlessly. We never have any issues with it."
"The vulnerability analysis is the best aspect of the solution."
"For us, the most valuable tool was open-source licensing analysis."
"With the fix suggestions feature, not only do you get the specific trace back to where the vulnerability is within your code, but you also get fix suggestions."
"The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”."
"Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"The UI can be slow once in a while, and we're not sure if it's because of the amount of data we have, or it is just a slow product, but it would be nice if it could be improved."
"They're working on a UI refresh. That's probably been one of the pain points for us as it feels like a really old application."
"WhiteSource only produces a report, which is nice to look at. However, you have to check that report every week, to see if something was found that you don't want. It would be great if the build that's generating a report would fail if it finds a very important vulnerability, for instance."
"WhiteSource Prioritize should be expanded to cover more than Java and JavaScript."
"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."
"At times, the latency of getting items out of the findings after they're remediated is higher than it should be."
"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
"I rated the solution an eight out of ten because WhiteSource hasn't built in a couple of features that we would have loved to use and they say they're on their roadmap. I'm hoping that they'll be able to build and deliver in 2022."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 5th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Mend.io is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode and JFrog Xray. See our Checkmarx One vs. Mend.io report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.