We performed a comparison between HCL AppScan and Mend.io based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance."
"It highlights, with several grades of severity, the types of vulnerabilities, so we can focus on the most severe security vulnerabilities in the code."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the scanning or security part."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution...The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy."
"The UI was very intuitive."
"The product is useful, particularly in its sensitivity and scanning capabilities."
"AppScan is stable."
"It has certainly helped us find vulnerabilities in our software, so this is priceless in the end."
"The inventory management as well as the ability to identify security vulnerabilities has been the most valuable for our business."
"I am the organizational deployment administrator for this tool, and I, along with other users in our company, especially the security team, appreciate the solution for several reasons. The UI is excellent, and scanning for security threats fits well into our workflow."
"WhiteSource helped reduce our mean time to resolution since the adoption of the product."
"We find licenses together with WhiteSource which are associated with a certain library, then we get a classification of the license. This is with respect to criticality and vulnerability, so we could take action and improve some things, or replace a third-party library which seems to be too risky for us to use on legal grounds."
"We use a lot of open sources with a variety of containers, and the different open sources come with different licenses. Some come with dual licenses, some are risky and some are not. All our three use cases are equally important to us and we found WhiteSource handles them decently."
"The most valuable feature is the unified JAR to scan for all langs (wss-scanner jar)."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives."
"Sometimes it doesn't work so well."
"We would like to integrate with some of the other reporting tools that we're planning to use in the future."
"It has crashed at times."
"We would like to see a check in the specific vulnerabilities in mobile applications or rooted devices, such as jailbreaking devices."
"I think being able to search across more containers, especially some of the docker elements. We need a little tighter integration there. That's the only thing I can see at this point."
"They should have a better UI for dashboards."
"If anything, I would spend more time making this more user-friendly, better documenting the CLI, and adding more examples to help expand the current documentation."
"WhiteSource Prioritize should be expanded to cover more than Java and JavaScript."
"We have ended our relationship with WhiteSource. We were using an agent that we built in the pipeline so that you can scan the projects during build time. But unfortunately, that agent didn't work at all. We have more than 500 projects, and it doubled or tripled the build time. For other projects, we had the failure of the builds without any known reason. It was not usable at all. We spent maybe one year working on the issues to try to make it work, but it didn't in the end. We should be able to integrate it with ID and Shift Left so that the developers are able to see the scan results without waiting for the build to fail."
"The turnaround time for upgrading databases for this tool as well as the accuracy could be improved."
"The only thing that I don't find support for on Mend Prioritize is C++."
"I would like to have an additional compliance pack. Currently, it does not have anything for the CIS framework or the NIST framework. If we directly run a scan, and it is under the CIS framework, we can directly tell the auditor that this product is now CIS compliant."
"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."
"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
HCL AppScan is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 13th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews. HCL AppScan is rated 7.8, while Mend.io is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of HCL AppScan writes " A stable and scalable product useful for application security scanning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". HCL AppScan is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Acunetix, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Invicti, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Veracode, Snyk and Coverity. See our HCL AppScan 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.
