Mend.io vs Veracode
Why choose Mend.io over Veracode for AppSec?
Veracode still runs like it’s 2010 — slow onboarding, noisy scans, and no real AI depth. Mend.io delivers faster setup and smarter prioritization that scales and actually reduces risk by 70%.
Mend and Veracode comparison
|
Feature |
Mend.io |
Veracode |
|---|---|---|
 Deployment & onboarding |
Lightweight setup, seamless CI/CD + IDE integrations, fast time-to-value |
Heavy rollout, consulting-dependent, complex configuration |
 Scanning performance & UX |
One unified engine with instant feedback in PRs and IDEs |
Compiling requirements slow scan speed, queue-based scans, legacy dashboards, slower feedback loops |
 Noise & prioritization |
Reachability-based filtering + AI-powered triage for precise, actionable results |
High false positives, manual triage burden |
|
Remediation & automation |
AI-generated fixes, grouped PRs, automated dependency updates |
AI-powered fixes for SAST |
 License governance |
File-level detection, dual-license conflict checks, automated workflows |
Limited to open-source license policy checks only |
 AI security coverage |
Secures AI-generated code, AI components, and AI behavioral risks; maintains AI BoM, hardens system prompts |
AI-generated code coverage only |
 Pricing & scale |
Unlimited scans and apps, transparent elastic pricing |
Per-app/per-scan pricing, unpredictable costs |
|
Ease of use & depth |
One platform, unified results, deep component and health analysis |
Fragmented modules, inconsistent results, legacy UX |
 Scan efficiency |
Fast, concurrent scanning with minimal infrastructure load |
Heavy scans, longer feedback cycles |
 Component health & malicious packages |
Proactively flags malicious, outdated, or unstable packages |
Minimal threat intelligence and health scoring |
|
Automated dependency updates |
Mend Renovate Enterprise supports automated PRs for both public/private packages; auto-fix workflows. |
No native support for automated dependency updates—patch velocity is lower. |
|
Language coverage |
200+ modern stacks and frameworks |
Narrower and slower language support expansion |
Why enterprises are switching from Veracode to Mend.io
Secure what Veracode can’t.
Mend.io closes the gaps Veracode leaves open—extending protection beyond code to secure the AI models, prompts, and components that drive modern applications.
Purchase to protection in one sprint, not one year.
Mend.io deploys in hours—not weeks—and scales effortlessly across repos, pipelines, and teams. No consultants required.
Security at your speed
Next-gen scan engines deliver fast, comprehensive results across any number of repos or pipelines—so feedback flows as fast as your development.
Clarity in cost. Confidence in coverage.
Unlimited scans. Transparent pricing. Predictable ROI. Mend.io eliminates the per-scan penalties and performance slowdowns that frustrate Veracode users.
Fix in flow — not in a queue.
Instant feedback in IDEs and pull requests, automated fix PRs, and AI-powered remediation—Mend.io lets developers fix in flow.
Actionable intelligence, not endless alerts
Reachability analysis, malicious package detection, and component health scoring keep your teams focused on real, exploitable risks—not endless false positives.
Don’t just take our word for it: Why teams choose Mend.io
Veracode:
“Huge number of false positives that needed to be explained away, did not deal well with 3rd party libraries.”
Mend.io:
“The accuracy of vulnerability detection is impressive, and we have rarely encountered false positives.”
Veracode:
“Veracode is expensive… The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive… There is also a fee for the support package, which I think is extremely expensive… we’re downgrading to the basic support, and even the basic support is expensive.”
Mend.io:
“The pricing is reasonable and scalable, making it a good fit for our growing business.”
Veracode:
“Bit complex to implement and understand the threats. Description is too less for many errors. Scanning takes more time to complete the result or report.”
Mend.io:
“The user interface is intuitive and easy to navigate, even for non-technical users.”
Veracode:
“Complex integration with pipelines and limited support for certain languages and frameworks also challenge users.”
Mend.io:
“The integration with our existing tools (like JIRA and Jenkins) was seamless, saving us a lot of time and effort.”
Veracode:
“The interface is clunky and disjointed, the documentation is confusing, and customer support takes literally weeks or months to respond to requests. It’s a classic case of an excellent idea with lackluster execution.”
Mend.io:
“The customer support team is knowledgeable and responsive, and the documentation is thorough and easy to understand.”
Veracode:
“Huge number of false positives that needed to be explained away, did not deal well with 3rd party libraries.”
Mend.io:
“The accuracy of vulnerability detection is impressive, and we have rarely encountered false positives.”
Veracode:
“Veracode is expensive… The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive… There is also a fee for the support package, which I think is extremely expensive… we’re downgrading to the basic support, and even the basic support is expensive.”
Mend.io:
“The pricing is reasonable and scalable, making it a good fit for our growing business.”
experience
Veracode:
“Bit complex to implement and understand the threats. Description is too less for many errors. Scanning takes more time to complete the result or report.”
Mend.io:
“The user interface is intuitive and easy to navigate, even for non-technical users.”
Veracode:
“Complex integration with pipelines and limited support for certain languages and frameworks also challenge users.”
Mend.io:
“The integration with our existing tools (like JIRA and Jenkins) was seamless, saving us a lot of time and effort.”
Veracode:
“The interface is clunky and disjointed, the documentation is confusing, and customer support takes literally weeks or months to respond to requests. It’s a classic case of an excellent idea with lackluster execution.”
Mend.io:
“The customer support team is knowledgeable and responsive, and the documentation is thorough and easy to understand.”
Frequently asked questions
What makes Mend.io better than Veracode for developers?
The Mend AppSec Platform fits the way developers actually work. It integrates directly into your SCM, IDE, and CI/CD pipelines to deliver real-time, actionable results—no queues, no waiting, no noisy reports. With automated dependency updates, reachability analysis, and AI-powered fix suggestions, Mend.io helps you focus on what’s exploitable, not just what’s vulnerable.
Does Mend.io require professional services to get started?
No. The Mend AppSec Platform is easy and fast to deploy and integrate. You can be scanning in hours—not weeks. Veracode, by contrast, often requires service-heavy implementation.
What about support for AI components in applications?
Mend AI offers comprehensive coverage for AI security —including detecting AI models, agents and RAGs, analyzing AI component risks, and behavioral testing (red teaming). Veracode has no comparable functionality.
How does pricing compare?
Mend.io offers simple, transparent pricing with no scan limits or hidden upsells. Mend AppSec delivers full platform coverage across code, open source, containers, and AI inventory for up to $1,000 per developer per year.
For teams focused on securing AI, Mend AI Premium adds advanced AI component inventory, AI component risk insights, system prompt hardening, AI red teaming, and proactive policies and governance for up to $300 per developer per year.
Available within the Platform or as a stand-alone product, Mend Renovate Enterprise delivers enterprise-grade dependency automation for up to $250 per developer per year.
Does Mend.io have any scan limits or restrictions I need to know about?
No. The platform is designed to scale with your organization’s needs.
Take a tour
See Mend.io in action
Take a self-guided tour of the Mend AppSec platform.
