Mend.io vs Polyspace Code Prover comparison

Mend.io and MathWorks are both solutions in the Application Security Tools category. Mend.io is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.8, while MathWorks is ranked #26 with an average rating of 6.3. Mend.io holds a 2.8% mindshare in AS, compared to MathWorks’s 1.4% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Mend.io users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 85% of MathWorks users who would recommend it.

Mend.io

Read 33 Mend.io reviews

6,607 Views
3,964 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Polyspace Code Prover

Read 7 Polyspace Code Prover reviews

2,329 Views
1,677 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Mend.io

Polyspace Code Prover

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Mend.io and Polyspace Code Prover are competing products in the software assurance domain. Mend.io has the upper hand in pricing and support, while Polyspace Code Prover is favored for its robust feature set despite a higher cost.

Features: Mend.io is known for strong integration capabilities, extensive reporting tools, and flexible workflows. Polyspace Code Prover is recognized for detection accuracy, specialized analysis, and precision in safety-critical environments.

Room for Improvement: Mend.io could enhance real-time analysis, performance speed, and usability. Polyspace Code Prover could benefit from streamlined updates, improved cross-compatibility, and initial deployment simplicity.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Mend.io deployment is simple with swift integration, and its customer service is well-rated with suggestions for quicker responses. Polyspace Code Prover has a complex setup but offers strong technical support with recommendations for simplifying initial steps.

Pricing and ROI: Mend.io provides competitive pricing and good ROI, appealing to cost-efficient teams. Polyspace Code Prover's higher cost is justified by its advanced analytical features, aligning long-term benefits with the investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Mend.io vs. Polyspace Code Prover Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Mend.io vs. Polyspace Code Prover

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

Mend.io

Ranking in Application Security Tools

18th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (7th), Static Code Analysis (5th), Software Supply Chain Security (2nd)

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

26th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Mend.io is 2.8%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.4%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Mend.io	2.8%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.4%
Other	95.8%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

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

reviewer2760282

General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees

Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification

Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.

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

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

"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."

"Mend.io is very robust in terms of managing third-party dependencies."

"The solution is scalable."

"The license management of WhiteSource was at a good level. As compared to other tools that I have used, its functionality for the licenses for the code libraries was quite good. Its UI was also fine."

"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 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."

More Mend.io pros

"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."

"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."

"The product detects memory corruptions."

"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."

"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."

"The outputs are very reliable."

Cons

"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."

"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 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."

"We specifically use this solution within our CICD pipelines in Azure DevOps, and we would like to have a gate so that if the score falls below a certain value then we can block the pipeline from running."

"The only thing that I don't find support for on Mend Prioritize is C++."

"The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily."

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

"The tools need to bring down the pricing because software in SaaS or on-prem is becoming a more expensive affair."

More Mend.io cons

"Automation could be a challenge."

"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."

"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."

"The tool has some stability issues."

"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing and licensing are comparable to other tools. When we started, it was less than our existing solution. I can't go into specifics, but it isn't cheap."

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

"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."

"Its pricing model is per developer. It depends on the number of developers in the company. The license is for a minimum of 20 developers. So, even if you are a small startup with less than 10 developers, you have to buy a license for 20 developers on a yearly subscription, which makes it quite expensive for startup customers. I provide consultation to startup accelerators. They're small at the beginning, and only once they grow to 20 developers, they can afford this tool. As a result, WhiteSource is missing this target audience. Their licensing is not flexible."

"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."

"The solution involves a yearly licensing fee."

"Pricing is competitive."

"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

"We use the paid version."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

38%

Computer Software Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

Questions from the Community

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

What do you like most about Polyspace Code Prover?

When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts,...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polyspace Code Prover?

We use the paid version.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Mend.io

Compared 16% of the time

Black Duck SCA vs Mend.io

Compared 8% of the time

JFrog Xray vs Mend.io

Compared 7% of the time

GitHub Dependabot vs Mend.io

Compared 6% of the time

Snyk vs Mend.io

Compared 6% of the time

More Mend.io Competitors

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 24% of the time

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 18% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 14% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 9% of the time

GitLab vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 3% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mend.io

January 2026

Download Mend.io product report

Buyer's Guide

Polyspace Code Prover

January 2026

Download Polyspace Code Prover product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

Mend.io is a software composition analysis tool that secures what developers create. The solution provides an automated reduction of the software attack surface, reduces developer burdens, and accelerates app delivery. Mend.io provides open-source analysis with its in-house and other multiple sources of software vulnerabilities. In addition, the solution offers license and policy violation alerts, has great pipeline integration, and, since it is a SaaS (software as a service), it doesn’t require you to physically maintain servers or data centers for any implementation. Not only does Mend.io reduce enterprise application security risk, it also helps developers meet deadlines faster.

Mend.io Features

Mend.io has many valuable key features. Some of the most useful ones include:

Vulnerability analysis
Automated remediation
Seamless integration
Business prioritization
Limitless scalability
Intuitive interface
Language support
Integration
Continuous monitoring
Remediation suggestions
Customization

Mend.io Benefits

There are many benefits to implementing Mend.io. Some of the biggest advantages the solution offers include:

Easy to use: The Mend.io platform is very user-friendly and easy to set up.

Third-party libraries: The solution eases the process of keeping track of all the used third-party dependencies within a product. It not only scans for the pure occurrence (also transitively) but also takes care of licenses and vulnerabilities.

Static code analysis: With Mend.io’s static code analysis, you can quickly identify security weaknesses in custom code across desktop, web, and mobile applications.

Broad support: Mend.io provides 27 different programming languages and various programming frameworks.

Easy integration: Mend.io makes integration very easy with existing DevOps environments and CI/CD pipelines so developers don’t need to manually configure or trigger the scan.

Ultra-fast scanning engine: The solution’s scanning engine generates results up to ten times faster than legacy SAST solutions.

Unified developer experience: Mend.io has a unified developer experience inside the code repository that shows side-by-side security alerts and remediation suggestions for custom code and open-source code.

Reviews from Real Users

Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by PeerSpot users currently using the Mend.io solution.

Jeffrey H., System Manager of Cloud Engineering at Common Spirit, says, “Finding vulnerabilities is pretty easy. Mend.io (formerly WhiteSource) does a great job of that and we had quite a few when we first put this in place. Mend.io does a very good job of finding the open-source, checking the versions, and making sure they're secure. They notify us of critical high, medium, and low impacts, and if anything is wrong. We find the product very easy to use and we use it as a core part of our strategy for scanning product code moving toward release.”

PeerSpot reviewer Ben D., Head of Software Engineering at a legal firm, mentions, “The way WhiteSource scans the code is great. It’s easy to identify and remediate open source vulnerabilities using this solution. WhiteSource helped reduce our mean time to resolution since we adopted the product. In terms of integration, it's pretty easy.”

An IT Service Manager at a wholesaler/distributor comments, “Mend.io provides threat detection and an excellent UI in a highly stable solution, with outstanding technical support.”

Another reviewer, Kevin D., Intramural OfficialIntramural at Northeastern University, states, "The vulnerability analysis is the best aspect of the solution."

Mend.io

Polyspace Code Prover is a sound static analysis tool that proves the absence of overflow, divide-by-zero, out-of-bounds array access, and certain other run-time errors in C and C++ source code. It produces results without requiring program execution, code instrumentation, or test cases. Polyspace Code Prover uses semantic analysis and abstract interpretation based on formal methods to verify software interprocedural, control, and data flow behavior. You can use it on handwritten code, generated code, or a combination of the two. Each operation is color-coded to indicate whether it is free of run-time errors, proven to fail, unreachable, or unproven.

MathWorks

Sample Customers

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

Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center

Buyer's Guide

Mend.io vs. Polyspace Code Prover

December 2025

Free Report: Mend.io vs. Polyspace Code Prover

Find out what your peers are saying about Mend.io vs. Polyspace Code Prover and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Mend.io vs. Polyspace Code Prover 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.