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 UI is very intuitive and simple to use."
"The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"The most valuable feature is the unified JAR to scan for all langs (wss-scanner jar)."
"The most valuable features are the reporting, customizing libraries "In-house, White list, license selection", comparing the products/projects, and License & Copyright resolution."
"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."
"The results and the dashboard they provide are good."
"The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should."
"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."
"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."
"I expect application security vendors to cover all aspects of application security, including SAST, DAST, and even mobile application security testing. And it would be much better if they provided an on-premises and cloud option for all these main application security features."
"Its user interface could be improved and made more friendly."
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient."
"The validation process needs to be sped up."
"There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"The only thing that I don't find support for on Mend Prioritize is C++."
"At times, the latency of getting items out of the findings after they're remediated is higher than it should be."
"Needs better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations and it definitely needs a better role/action model."
"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."
"They're working on a UI refresh. That's probably been one of the pain points for us as it feels like a really old application."
"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."
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.
