We performed a comparison between Mend.io and Qualys Web Application Scanning 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."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 results and the dashboard they provide are good."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the reporting, customizing libraries "In-house, White list, license selection", comparing the products/projects, and License & Copyright resolution."
"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."
"The dashboard view and the management view are most valuable."
"The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should."
"The solution is scalable."
"Its most valuable features are patch management, vulnerability management, and PCI compliance."
"This product is designed for easy scalability and can easily scale up without major challenges."
"Key features include: Cloud-based, so the installation is not so tedious. Easily deployed. Highly scalable. Comprehensive reporting."
"The most valuable feature is that we are able to scan the services and put credentials like a user ID password. We can verify the vulnerability level."
"By using QualysGuard, we are able to finish external scans with assured results in half the time."
"Licensing is the most valuable. Qualys provides the best licensing for companies. It is the best product for the development purposes of web applications. The product has a lot of integrations."
"The Qualys Web Application Scanning solution offers a single comprehensive console and consolidated reporting, covering all aspects from on-prem to cloud and compliance, etcetera."
"The simplicity of exporting reports and the simplicity and clarity of the reports included with the product are good."
"Mend lets you create custom policies. They're not too complicated to set up, but it would be helpful if they had some preconfigured policies to match what we have in Azure DevOps. That would save us a lot of time. It's tedious to configure the policies manually, and I lack the capacity to do it right now. Other products have preconfigured packs and templates, and Mend doesn't."
"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 solution lacks the code snippet part."
"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."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily."
"Some detected libraries do not specify a location of where in the source they were matched from, which is something that should be enhanced to enable quicker troubleshooting."
"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."
"In terms of the Policy Compliance model which they currently have, not all the platforms are being covered. If they could improve on the Policy Compliance model, since there are policies which are benchmarked against it, this will be helpful for us."
"The scanner reports a lot of false positives, which is something that needs to be improved."
"There should be better visibility into the application."
"In certain cases, this product does have false positives, which the company should work on."
"We receive false positives sometimes when using a solution that could be improved. However, the technical team provides us with the exact explanation why it was giving us that kind of error."
"The reporting contains too many false positives."
"The pricing does not seem to be competitive."
"The product's pricing could be better."
More Qualys Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
Mend.io is ranked 5th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews while Qualys Web Application Scanning is ranked 19th in Application Security Tools with 31 reviews. Mend.io is rated 8.4, while Qualys Web Application Scanning is rated 7.8. 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 Qualys Web Application Scanning writes "A stable solution that can be used for infrastructure vulnerability scanning and web application scanning". Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk and Checkmarx One, whereas Qualys Web Application Scanning is most compared with OWASP Zap, Veracode, SonarQube, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Fortify WebInspect. See our Mend.io vs. Qualys Web Application Scanning 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.