We performed a comparison between GitHub Advanced Security and Mend.io 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."Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"What is very nice is that the product is very easy to set up. When you want to implement Mend.io, it just takes a few minutes to create your organization, create your products, and scan them. It's really convenient to have Mend scanning your products in less than one hour."
"The results and the dashboard they provide are good."
"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."
"WhiteSource helped reduce our mean time to resolution since the adoption of the product."
"We use a lot of open sources with a variety of containers, and the different open sources come with different licenses. Some come with dual licenses, some are risky and some are not. All our three use cases are equally important to us and we found WhiteSource handles them decently."
"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."
"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 report limitations are the main issue."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."
"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."
"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."
"Mend supports most of the common package managers, but it doesn't support some that we use. I would appreciate it if they can quickly make these changes to add new package managers when necessary."
"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."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"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."
GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews while Mend.io is ranked 5th in Application Security Tools with 29 reviews. GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0, while Mend.io is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mend.io writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode and Fortify on Demand, whereas Mend.io is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk, Veracode and Checkmarx One. See our GitHub Advanced Security 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.