Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GitHub Advanced Security vs Mend.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

GitHub Advanced Security
Ranking in Application Security Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Mend.io
Ranking in Application Security Tools
18th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (7th), Static Code Analysis (5th), Software Supply Chain Security (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of GitHub Advanced Security is 3.9%, down from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mend.io is 2.6%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
GitHub Advanced Security3.9%
Mend.io2.6%
Other93.5%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Devendiran Kandan - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Security scanning has protected our pipelines but currently needs clearer dashboards and controls
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inline product, I'm not seeing user-friendly things in GitHub Advanced Security. Dependent bots and the secret detection are good compared to others. However, code scanning is not finding very good results based on pipeline where it will scan and do code scanning. While build, before building and deploying the code, we want to block or do an advanced model, but it is not supporting. During deployment, code scanning is not good. It is a little complicated. It is not a straightforward method we can complete. We need expertise to get the full benefit, and troubleshooting sometimes requires going through that. The security overview dashboard is not really clear. It's not showing centralized information; each repo is showing, but if you compare it with competitors, it is not that great. Mainly in the centralized dashboard, enterprise level needs to improve. A centralized way where we can get that overall view is needed, and we want that code scanning and blocking deployments based on security. There are AI improvements, but however, it is not so easy to configure. It is multiple windows we need to go through and make changes or configure that. A few things we need to enable going into settings, and a few things we can find out in security. One product where security means the security dashboard should cover everything, but it is going here and there in many places.
meetharoon - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"GitHub Advanced Security's secret scanning is good."
"I have not experienced any performance or stability issues with GitHub Advanced Security."
"GitHub Advanced Security is a very developer-friendly solution that is integrated within my development environment."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"GitHub Advanced Security is ten out of ten scalable."
"The initial setup was straightforward and completed in a matter of minutes."
"The features I find most valuable in Mend.io are the ease of use; it is very easy to access and integrate."
"The reporting capability gives us the option to generate an open-source license report in a single click, which gets all copyright and license information, including dependencies."
"The overall support that we receive is pretty good. ​"
"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 solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should."
"Its ease of use and good results are the most valuable."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"Our dev team uses the fix suggestions feature to quickly find the best path for remediation."
 

Cons

"Maybe make it compatible with more programming languages. Have a customized ruleset where the end-user can create their own rules for scanning."
"Open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security."
"GitHub Advanced Security should look into API security issues, which they currently do not. Additionally, open-source security vulnerabilities are not getting updated in a timely manner."
"An area of GitHub Advanced Security that has room for improvement is customization."
"For GitHub Advanced Security, I would like to see more support for various programming languages."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"At times, the latency of getting items out of the findings after they're remediated is higher than it should be."
"Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"I would like to have an additional compliance pack. Currently, it does not have anything for the CIS framework or the NIST framework. If we directly run a scan, and it is under the CIS framework, we can directly tell the auditor that this product is now CIS compliant."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"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."
"AI integration in code security tools like Mend.io is still in its early stages and relatively immature."
"Needs better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations and it definitely needs a better role/action model."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The current licensing model, which relies on active commitments, poses challenges, particularly in predicting and managing growth."
"The solution is expensive."
"As we were using an SaaS-based service, the solution must be scalable, although my understanding is that this is based on the licensing model one is using."
"The version that we are using, WhiteSource Bolt, is a free integration with Azure DevOps."
"The solution involves a yearly licensing fee."
"We always negotiate for the best price possible, and as far as I know, Mend has done an excellent job with their pricing. Our management is happy with the pricing, which has led to renewals."
"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."
"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."
"WhiteSource is much more affordable than Veracode."
"Pricing is competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with GitHub Advanced Security?
We used additional third-party solutions, but we replaced them with GitHub Advanced Security, even though I do not have a very good opinion about GitHub Advanced Security. Even though it is an inli...
What is your primary use case for GitHub Advanced Security?
I'm working with software development nowadays. As a process, we are using the dependent bot alerts and the code scanning for Java, and some of the code scanning is happening. Security secrets in c...
What advice do you have for others considering GitHub Advanced Security?
Dependent bots and the secret detection are good compared to others. However, code scanning is not finding very good results based on pipeline where it will scan and do code scanning. While build, ...
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...
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...
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
WhiteSource, Mend SCA, Mend.io Supply Chain Defender, Mend SAST
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Microsoft, Autodesk, NCR, Target, IBM, vodafone, Siemens, GE digital, KPMG, LivePerson, Jack Henry and Associates
Find out what your peers are saying about GitHub Advanced Security vs. Mend.io and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.