We performed a comparison between Mend and Veracode 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 Veracode. While both solutions offer fast vulnerability resolutions, Veracode’s higher licensing and delayed tech support leave room for improvement.
"The best feature is that the Mend R&D team does their due diligence for all the vulnerabilities. In case they observe any important or critical vulnerabilities, such as the Log4j-related vulnerability, we usually get a dedicated email from our R&D team saying that this particular vulnerability has been exploited in the world, and we should definitely check our project for this and take corrective actions."
"For us, the most valuable tool was open-source licensing analysis."
"The dashboard view and the management view are most valuable."
"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."
"Enables scanning/collecting third-party libraries and classifying license types. In this way we ensure our third-party software policy is followed."
"The most valuable features are the reporting, customizing libraries "In-house, White list, license selection", comparing the products/projects, and License & Copyright resolution."
"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 solution is scalable."
"The recommendations and frequent updates are the most valuable features of Veracode."
"It is a cloud-based platform, so every organization or every security team in the organization is concerned about uploading their code because ultimately the code is intellectual property. The most useful thing about Veracode is that if you want to upload the code, they accept only byte code. They do not accept the plain source code as an input. The code is converted into binary code, and it is uploaded to Veracode. So, it is quite secure. It also has the automation feature where you can integrate security during the initial stages of your software development life cycle. It is pretty much easy with Veracode. Veracode provides integration with multiple tools and platforms, such as Visual Studio, Java, and Eclipse. Developers can integrate with those tools by using Jenkins. The security consultation or the support that they provide is also really good. Its user management is also good. You can restrict the users for a particular application so that only certain developers will be able to see the code that has been scanned. Their reporting model is really good. For each customer, they provide a program manager. Every quarter, they have their reviews about how much it has scanned. They also ensure that the tool has been used efficiently."
"I liked that I could easily find out where my errors were. Instead of going through the whole code and the scripts, it showed me where the errors were and gave me an idea of how to fix them."
"We like the fact that all the issues are identified and that Veracode provides sufficient information on how to resolve them."
"Veracode static analysis allows us to pinpoint issues - from a simple hard-coded test password, to more serious issues - and saves us lot of time. For example, it raises a flag about a problematic third-party DLL before development invests time heavy using it."
"I don't have much experience with the solution yet. We're looking at integrating Manual Penetration Testing with JIRA and Bamboo and then building that into a CICD model, so the integration is the most valuable feature so far."
"The CSCA vulnerability scanning is useful."
"When we expanded our definition of critical systems to include an internal application to be scanned by Veracode, we had initial scans that produced hundreds of vulnerabilities. We expected this, based on how the code was treated previously, but the Veracode platform allowed us to streamline our identification of these items and develop a game plan to quickly address them."
"WhiteSource needs improvement in the scanning of the containers and images with distinguishing the layers."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."
"On the reporting side, they could make some improvements. They are making the reports better and better, but sometimes it takes a lot of time to generate a report for our entire organization."
"Needs better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations and it definitely needs a better role/action model."
"It would be nice to have a better way to realize its full potential and translate it within the UI or during onboarding."
"Mend supports most of the common package managers, but it doesn't support some that we use. I would appreciate it if they can quickly make these changes to add new package managers when necessary."
"The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"I would like to see improvement on the analytics side, and in integrations with different tools. Also, the dynamic scanning takes time."
"I'd like to see more development tools and platforms integrated together with Veracode to amplify the solution's effectiveness."
"One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive."
"Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them."
"I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages."
"A high number of false positives are reported and this should be reduced."
Mend.io is ranked 5th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Mend.io is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk, Checkmarx One and JFrog Xray, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and HCL AppScan. See our Mend.io vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.