We performed a comparison between Mend and Checkmarx 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 Chechmarx. While both possess flexibility and good vulnerability compliance, Checkmarx’s modular licensing and data search tools leave room for improvement.
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all."
"The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"I like that you don't have to compile the code in order to execute static code analysis. So, it's very handy."
"It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc)."
"The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions)."
"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."
"For us, the most valuable tool was open-source licensing analysis."
"Our dev team uses the fix suggestions feature to quickly find the best path for remediation."
"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."
"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 license management of WhiteSource was at a good level. As compared to other tools that I have used, its functionality for the licenses for the code libraries was quite good. Its UI was also fine."
"The dashboard view and the management view are most valuable."
"Checkmarx could improve the REST APIs by including automation."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools."
"The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information."
"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues."
"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."
"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."
"It would be nice to have a better way to realize its full potential and translate it within the UI or during onboarding."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Needs better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations and it definitely needs a better role/action model."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 5th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Mend.io is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode and JFrog Xray. See our Checkmarx One 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.
