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.
"Attribution and license due diligence reports help us with aggregating the necessary data that we, in turn, have to provide to satisfy the various licenses copyright and component usage disclosures in our software."
"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."
"WhiteSource helped reduce our mean time to resolution since the adoption of the product."
"We can take some measures to improve things, replace a library, or update a library which was too old or showed severe bugs."
"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."
"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."
"Our dev team uses the fix suggestions feature to quickly find the best path for remediation."
"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 Security Labs [is] where I have the developers training and constantly improving their security, and remembering their security techniques. That way, they are more proactive and make sure things are correct. They're faster because they're doing it in the first place."
"Provides consistent evaluation and results without huge fluctuations in false positives or negatives."
"Their dashboard is really good, overall. In my opinion, it's one of the best in the market, and I say that because we have used other service providers."
"Veracode has good support for microservices, and I also like the sandbox environment. For example, when introducing a new component, we can scan it in a sandbox environment. It will not impact the main environment. When our team fixes it, they. can push it to the production environment when the results are acceptable."
"The deployment mode is very useful."
"The reporting being highly accurate is pretty cool. I use another product and I was always looking for answers as to what line, which part of the code, was wrong, and what to do about it. Veracode seems to have a solid database to look things up and a website to look things up."
"The most valuable feature of Veracode is the binary scan feature for auditing, which allows us to audit the software without the source code."
"The most valuable feature is detecting security vulnerabilities in the project."
"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."
"The solution lacks the code snippet part."
"The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily."
"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."
"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."
"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
"At times, the latency of getting items out of the findings after they're remediated is higher than it should be."
"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."
"Veracode should include the feature to run multiple scales at a time."
"The static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives. But that's how it is with most static analysis tools... Also, the static analysis can sometimes take a little while. The time that it takes to do a scan should be improved."
"Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided."
"It's taking too much time to do a quality scan."
"Sometimes Veracode gives us results about small glitches in the necessary packages. For example, we recently found issues with Veracode's native libraries for .NET 6 that were fixed in the next versions of those libraries. But sometimes you do not know which version of the library particular components are using. The downside of that is that one day, the solution found some issues in that library for the necessary package we spent. Another day, it found the same issues with another library. It will clearly state that this is the same stuff you've already analyzed. This creates some additional work, but it isn't significant. However, sometimes you see the same issue for two or three days in a row."
"They should improve on the static scanning time."
"The dynamic scanning feature works, but it doesn't work properly for some of our applications. It doesn't allow us to skip. They claim that we can do this, but it doesn't work when we're scanning the applications in real-time."
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.
