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 results and the dashboard they provide are good."
"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."
"It gives us full visibility into what we're using, what needs to be updated, and what's vulnerable, which helps us make better decisions."
"Our dev team uses the fix suggestions feature to quickly find the best path for remediation."
"The most valuable feature is the inventory, where it compiles a list of all of the third-party libraries that we have on our estate."
"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 vulnerability analysis is the best aspect of the solution."
"Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It enables developers to write secure code from the start by pointing them to the problematic line of code, and saying, "This function/method has security vulnerabilities," then suggests alternatives to fix it. Then, we adopt their suggestions of the tool. By implementing it in the right way, we can fix the issue. For example, if the tool has found a method where it copied one piece of memory into another piece of memory in the code. The tool points to problematic methods with the vulnerability and provides ways to code it more securely. By adopting their suggestions, we are fixing this vulnerability."
"The best feature is definitely the detailed reports. It provides code-related queries in the order of high, medium, and low depending on what we need to do. Veracode is user-friendly as well."
"It's good at identifying security issues. It can pinpoint issues very effectively."
"The installation was straightforward."
"This is a great tool for learning about potential vulnerabilities in code."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"Veracode offers various security features."
"Static analysis scanning engine is a key feature."
"The turnaround time for upgrading databases for this tool as well as the accuracy could be improved."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."
"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."
"It would be good if it can do dynamic code analysis. It is not necessarily in that space, but it can do more because we have too many tools. Their partner relationship support is a little bit confusing. They haven't really streamlined the support process when we buy through a reseller. They should improve their process."
"It should support multiple SBOM formats to be able to integrate with old industry standards."
"We have been looking at how we could improve the automation to human involvement ratio from 60:40 to 70:30, or even potentially 80:20, as there is room for improvement here. We are discussing this internally and with Mend; they are very accommodating to us. We think they openly receive our feedback and do their best to implement our thoughts into the roadmap."
"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."
"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."
"I would also like to see some improvement in the speed. That is really the only complaint, but in all reality we have a massive Java application that needs to be scanned. Our developers are saying, "It takes 72 hours to scan it." That is probably the nature of the beast, and I'm actually pretty accepting of that time frame, but since it's a complaint that I get, faster is always better. I don't necessarily think that the speed is bad as it is, just that faster would be better."
"I've seen slightly better static analysis tools from other companies when it comes to speed and ease of use."
"One of the most important areas that need improvement for Veracode is its DaaS. Veracode's DAST engines are primitive."
"There might be room for improvement in the in-app guidance and the tips and tricks for the developer about how to progress. We would like more insight into the development environment, where they would get guidance on how to avoid flaws."
"The results of agent-based software composition analysis are not connected to policy scanning. So, for me, the only thing that Veracode can improve in Software Composition Analysis is to connect it with the policy scan because, at present, it is a bit inconvenient for those in our organization who use agent-based Software Composition Analysis. In the end, they need to make a static scan with all those libraries in order to receive that report. If Veracode implemented a connection between agent-based static scan and static scanning itself, it would be great because it would lead to fewer operations in order to prepare release documentation and release reporting from Veracode. We recently had a conversation with Veracode about it."
"The area with the most room for improvement is the speed and responsiveness of the query, as it is usually very slow."
"The only areas that I'm concerned with are some of the newer code libraries, things that we're starting to see people dabble with. They move quickly enough to get them into the Analysis Engine, so I wouldn't even say it is a complaint. It is probably the only thing I worry about: Occasionally hitting something that is built in some other obscure development model, where we either can't scan it or can't scan it very well."
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.
