Contrast Security Assess vs Mend.io comparison

Contrast Security and Mend.io are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Contrast Security is ranked #31, while Mend.io is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.8. Contrast Security holds a 1.6% mindshare in AS, compared to Mend.io’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Contrast Security users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Mend.io users who would recommend it.

Contrast Security Assess

Read 11 Contrast Security Assess reviews

3,510 Views
2,492 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Mend.io

Read 33 Mend.io reviews

9,027 Views
5,326 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Contrast Security Assess

Mend.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Contrast Security Assess and Mend.io are competing solutions in software security, each offering unique strengths. Contrast Security Assess has an edge with specialized detection capabilities, while Mend.io stands out for its comprehensive features and user-friendly integration.

Features: Contrast Security Assess delivers in-depth security insights with real-time vulnerability detection, offers notable support options, and excels in niche detection capabilities. Mend.io integrates seamlessly with various development tools, handles complex workflows efficiently, and provides a robust feature set catering to specific user needs.

Room for Improvement: Contrast Security Assess could enhance its reporting functionalities, refine intuitive reporting, and expand its feature set beyond niche applications. Mend.io users seek faster software updates, improved integration capabilities, and enhanced detail in support documentation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Contrast Security Assess is valued for a straightforward deployment process and attentive customer service, offering personalized support during transitions. Mend.io provides a quick setup with ample support, though it may occasionally lack the desired level of detail.

Pricing and ROI: Contrast Security Assess clients view it as cost-effective with substantial long-term ROI, appreciating favorable setup costs. Mend.io, though noted for higher initial costs, is recognized for delivering significant ROI through its comprehensive features, affirming its value over time.

To learn more, read our detailed Contrast Security Assess vs. Mend.io Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. Mend.io

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 896,563 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Contrast Security Assess

Ranking in Application Security Tools

31st

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (26th)

Mend.io

Ranking in Application Security Tools

16th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (7th), Static Code Analysis (6th), Software Supply Chain Security (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Contrast Security Assess is 1.6%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mend.io is 2.5%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Mend.io	2.5%
Contrast Security Assess	1.6%
Other	95.9%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

ToddMcAlister

Lead Application and Data Security Engineer at a insurance company with 5,001-10,000 employees

It has an excellent API interface to pull APIs.

Assess has brought our development time down because it helps create code the first time. Instead of going through the Jenkins process to build an application, they can see right off the bat that if there are errors in the code and fix them before it even goes to build.

Read full review

meetharoon

CEO at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

Centralized security monitoring has reduced false positives and improves dependency governance

The only area for improvement I would say is that the false positives are nearly zero; everything is mostly like 99 to 99.99% or we can say 100% accurate. There were a few areas for improvement just from the last time I saw; I think the user experience had a little problem. We wanted to have certain reports based on our kind of scenario, but the tool did not allow us to create custom reports. We had asked for some facility and some ability for us to create some custom reports. That would be awesome if they allow us to create custom reports the way we wanted. There is one small area which I don't know whether we should call a tool limitation or a wish list; if I use a library and I don't use all the capabilities of the library but only a portion of it and that portion is not vulnerable, but there is a component which is outdated, that is a problem, even though I don't use that component. Mend.io will discover there is a problem in the whole library; that is correct. That's a valid discovery, but in my case, for example, if I don't use that particular portion, then it actually is not making sense for me, but that's not a limitation of Mend.io; I think that's a general problem with any tool in the market because no tool in the market will actually know what portion of the code I'm actually using from that particular library if it is vulnerable or not.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"From a percentage perspective, somewhere around 90 percent of the time we used to spend has been given back to our team, because the false positive rate with Contrast is less than 5 percent."

"One of the key takeaways is that in order to have a secure application, you cannot rely on just the pentest, vulnerability assessments, and the periodicity of the reviews; you need the real-time feedback on that, and Contrast Assess offers that."

"It is a stable solution...Contrast Security Assess is one of the first players in this market, so they have experience and customers, especially abroad. Overall, it's a good product."

"When we access the application, it continuously monitors and detects vulnerabilities."

"The accuracy of the solution in identifying vulnerabilities is better than any other product we've used, far and away. In our internal comparisons among different tools, Contrast consistently finds more impactful vulnerabilities, and also identifies vulnerabilities that are nearly guaranteed to be there, meaning that the chance of false positives is very low."

"No other tool does the runtime scanning like Contrast does. Other static analysis tools do static scanning, but Contrast is runtime analysis, when the routes are exercised. That's when the scan happens. This is a tool that has a very unique capability compared to other tools. That's what I like most about Contrast, that it's runtime."

"We use the Contrast OSS feature that allows us to look at third-party, open-source software libraries, because it has a cool interface where you can look at all the different libraries. It has some really cool additional features where it gives us how many instances in which something has been used... It tells us it has been used 10 times out of 20 workloads, for example. Then we know for sure that OSS is being used."

"Contrast was a very complete solution; it met all of our technical requirements and it was really the only IAST product that felt like a real product."

More Contrast Security Assess pros

"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."

"With WhiteSource in place, we are going to be able to do the whole process automatically and it will be confident that we removed the vulnerabilities and license violations."

"We use this solution for scanning NodeJS and Maven projects during the CI/CD processes, running hundreds of scans per day on any project that passes the release build, so every release build runs the WhiteSource scan before deployment to production clusters, which ensures that we are covered in terms of licenses for open source dependencies."

"For us, the most valuable tool was open-source licensing analysis."

"The integration with Azure DevOps was good, and 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."

"Once we onboarded to Mend.io, we saw a drastic improvement in the way Mend.io reported the SCA findings."

"The vulnerability analysis is the best aspect of the solution."

More Mend.io pros

Cons

"The solution needs to improve flexibility...The scalability of the product is a problem in the solution, especially from a commercial perspective."

"Regarding the solution's OSS feature, the one drawback that we do have is that it does not have client-side support. We'll be missing identification of libraries like jQuery or JavaScript, and such, that are client-side."

"I would like to see them come up with more scanning rules."

"I think there was activity underway to support the centralized configuration control. There are ways to do it, but I think they were productizing more of that."

"Personalization of the board and how to make it appealing to an organization is something that could be done on their end."

"To instrument an agent, it has to be running on a type of application technology that the agent recognizes and understands. It's excellent when it works. If we're using an application that is using an unsupported technology, then we can't instrument it at all. We do use PHP and Contrast presently doesn't support that, although it's on their roadmap. My primary hurdle is that it doesn't support all of the technologies that we use."

"The out-of-the-box reporting could be improved. We need to write our own APIs to make the reporting more robust."

"The setup of the solution is different for each application. That's the one thing that has been a challenge for us. The deployment itself is simple, but it's tough to automate because each application is different, so each installation process for Contrast is different."

More Contrast Security Assess cons

"We have more than 500 projects, and it doubled or tripled the build time."

"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."

"The turnaround time for upgrading databases for this tool as well as the accuracy could be improved."

"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."

"WhiteSource needs improvement in the scanning of the containers and images with distinguishing the layers."

"If anything, I would spend more time making this more user-friendly, better documenting the CLI, and adding more examples to help expand the current documentation."

"We wanted to have certain reports based on our kind of scenario, but the tool did not allow us to create custom reports."

"The dashboard UI and UX are problematic."

More Mend.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product's pricing is low. I would rate it a two out of ten."

"I like the per-application licensing model... We just license the app and we look at different vulnerabilities on that app and we remediate within the app. It's simpler."

"The solution is expensive."

"It's a tiered licensing model. The more you buy, as you cross certain quantity thresholds, the pricing changes. If you have a smaller environment, your licensing costs are going to be different than a larger environment... The licensing is primarily per application. An application can be as many agents as you need. If you've got 10 development servers and 20 production servers and 50 QA servers, all of those agents can be reporting as a single application that utilizes one license."

"The good news is that the agent itself comes in two different forms: the unlicensed form and the licensed form. Unlicensed gives use of that software composition analysis for free. Thereafter, if you apply a license to that same agent, that's when the instrumentation takes hold. So one of my suggestions is to do what we're doing: Deploy the agent to as many applications as possible, with just the SCA feature turned on with no license applied, and then you can be more choosy and pick which teams will get the license applied."

"For what it offers, it's a very reasonable cost. The way that it is priced is extremely straightforward. It works on the number of applications that you use, and you license a server. It is something that is extremely fair, because it doesn't take into consideration the number of requests, etc. It is only priced based on the number of onboarded applications. It suits our model as well, because we have huge traffic. Our number of applications is not that large, so the pricing works great for us."

"You only get one license for an application. Ours are very big, monolithic applications with millions of lines of code. We were able to apply one license to one monolithic application, which is great. We are happy with the licensing. Pricing-wise, they are industry-standard, which is fine."

"It is fairly priced."

"When comparing the price of WhiteSource to the competition it is priced well. The cost for 50 users is approximately $18,000 annually."

"The solution involves a yearly licensing fee."

"Pricing is competitive."

"Over the last two years, they have tried to add more and more features to their license packages, but the price is a little bit high, comparatively."

"We are paying a lot of money to use WhiteSource. In our company, it is not easy to argue that it is worth the price. "

"WhiteSource is much more affordable than Veracode."

"Mend is costly but not overly expensive. The license was quite expensive this year, but we managed to negotiate the price down to the same as last year. At the same time, it's a good value. We're getting what we're paying for and still not using all the features. We could probably get more out of the tool and make it more valuable. At the moment, we don't have the capacity to do that."

More Mend.io pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

896,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Comms Service Provider

Construction Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	20

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

How does WhiteSource compare with SonarQube?

Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...

See all answers

How does WhiteSource compare with Black Duck?

We researched Black Duck but ultimately chose WhiteSource when looking for an application security tool. WhiteSource is a software solution that enables agile open source security and license compl...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mend.io?

Mend.io SCA offers a competitive pricing structure that is relatively affordable compared to similar solutions in the market. This makes it an attractive option for organizations looking to enhance...

See all answers

Comparisons

Veracode vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 6% of the time

SonarQube vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

Quotium Seeker vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 5% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

GitHub vs Contrast Security Assess

Compared 4% of the time

More Contrast Security Assess Competitors

SonarQube vs Mend.io

Compared 7% of the time

Black Duck SCA vs Mend.io

Compared 6% of the time

Snyk vs Mend.io

Compared 5% of the time

Sonatype Lifecycle vs Mend.io

Compared 5% of the time

Veracode vs Mend.io

Compared 5% of the time

More Mend.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess

May 2026

Download Contrast Security Assess product report

Buyer's Guide

Mend.io

May 2026

Download Mend.io product report

Also Known As

Contrast Assess

WhiteSource, Mend SCA, Mend.io Supply Chain Defender, Mend SAST

Overview

Contrast Security Assess is an IAST platform known for accurate vulnerability detection. It integrates into development workflows, offering real-time insights into security issues with minimal false positives, supporting legacy applications and enhancing code security visibility.

Designed to integrate seamlessly into DevOps workflows, Contrast Security Assess automates real-time vulnerability detection and reduces false positives through its powerful IAST features. By continuously monitoring vulnerabilities, it provides a robust option for securing legacy applications and identifying vulnerabilities without lengthy scans. This cloud-hosted platform supports numerous programming languages, making it versatile for security testing across enterprise environments. Users benefit from detailed reports that pinpoint exact code locations requiring remediation, enhancing speed and efficiency in addressing security concerns.

What are the key features of Contrast Security Assess?

IAST Technology: Delivers accurate vulnerability detection with reduced false positives.
Seamless Integration: Integrates into development processes, supporting real-time vulnerability detection.
Open Source Security: Analyzes third-party libraries for vulnerabilities.
Continuous Monitoring: Provides valuable insights with real-time security feedback for developers.
API Interface: Enhances operational efficiency and streamlining with minimal false positives.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Enhanced Security Visibility: Offers comprehensive insights across application environments.
Speed and Efficiency: Quick identification and remediation of vulnerabilities accelerate development.
Operational Streamlining: Seamless integration into DevOps workflows improves productivity.
Legacy Application Support: Effective for securing existing applications with ongoing monitoring.

Companies in industries requiring high levels of application security, such as finance and healthcare, implement Contrast Security Assess for its ability to enhance visibility and detect vulnerabilities early in the development lifecycle. Its seamless integration with DevOps processes makes it ideal for environments that prioritize agility while maintaining stringent security standards.

Contrast Security

Mend.io integrates seamlessly into development environments, providing open-source dependency scanning, CVE detection, and license management to enhance security and efficiency during code development.

Mend.io delivers comprehensive open-source vulnerability detection and remediation, seamlessly integrating with CI/CD workflows. It equips organizations with tools for software composition analysis and license risk detection, efficiently identifying vulnerabilities and managing policies. Mend.io supports a wide array of programming languages and deployment environments while integrating with developer tools like GitHub, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps to enhance security feedback and decision-making. Its ease of use and rapid setup boost efficiency in managing open-source dependencies and reducing vulnerabilities.

What are Mend.io's Key Features?

Open-source dependency scanning: Efficiently scans and identifies vulnerabilities in third-party libraries.
CVE detection: Detects and alerts on potential security risks with granularity.
License management: Manages open-source licenses to ensure compliance and reduce legal risks.
Integration: Works seamlessly with Visual Studio, Azure DevOps, and more.
Fix suggestions: Provides actionable solutions to identified vulnerabilities.
Automated policy management: Enhances security by automating policy adherence.

What Advantages Should be Considered in User Feedback?

Development efficiency: Streamlines workflows to improve code security and quality.
Rapid setup: Minimal time investment required, allowing immediate integration into existing processes.
Extensive language support: Accommodates multiple programming environments, enhancing flexibility.
Robust integration options: Compatible with top development tools, bolstering productivity.

Mend.io empowers industries such as finance, healthcare, and e-commerce by integrating robust open-source security measures within their development cycles, enhancing their ability to address vulnerabilities swiftly and maintain compliance amidst rigorous regulatory standards.

Mend.io

Sample Customers

Williams-Sonoma, Autodesk, HUAWEI, Chromeriver, RingCentral, Demandware.

Microsoft, Autodesk, NCR, Target, IBM, vodafone, Siemens, GE digital, KPMG, LivePerson, Jack Henry and Associates

Buyer's Guide

Contrast Security Assess vs. Mend.io

April 2026

Free Report: Contrast Security Assess vs. Mend.io

Find out what your peers are saying about Contrast Security Assess vs. Mend.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

896,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Contrast Security Assess 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.