Mend.io Reviews

We are a law firm, however, we do write some of our own software. Sometimes that software is integrated with our systems and sometimes it's bespoke software for clients. We write code with C#, JavaScript, and more, and we use a lot of third-party libraries. We need to check these third-party open-source libraries for vulnerabilities and go through a process of looking at various tools in the market.

WhiteSource stood out mainly for the way it approached scanning code. Some of these solutions often send the code somewhere else to be scanned, whereas WhiteSource allows us to scan wherever our tenant is. The reason we chose this solution was to look at the security analysis of these third-party libraries.

The way WhiteSource scans the code is great. Being a legal firm, we're a bit more sensitive around our data, and we didn't want that going to different regions. With WhiteSource we can keep our data in the same data sovereignty as it was. That is a big deal for us. In terms of the analysis it can do, it is really useful. This was new to us as an organization, as not only can we find vulnerabilities, but we can also look at the license distribution.

We can understand the open-source licenses, which come with some constraints. That's something we wanted to avoid. Recently, there was a log4j vulnerability that was very prominent in the security community, and we were quickly able to see if we were using it and where. That's the inventory side. It was really useful in that respect.

It’s easy to identify and remediate open source vulnerabilities using this solution. There were a couple of times when something was reported as a vulnerability. When we looked into it a bit more and we talked with the WhiteSource support staff, we found that it was caused by something else. That's pretty rare. Most of the time, it's fairly clear. It says you need to go from one version of the library to another version of the library. It's pretty plain and works well. There have been just a couple of occasions where we needed to dig a little deeper.

Tech support has been very swift and helps us understand false vulnerabilities and they make sure that they don’t happen again in the future. They've got a good support system.

We can detect the vulnerabilities in the SaaS tool itself. We can go to our particular project and see them, or we can see them when we run the code. We can run the tool locally. Even before we scan the code, we can perform a local scan and that's been pretty useful for our developers. It is certainly useful that the vulnerability is displayed both in the WhiteSource platform and our CI/CD tool of choice. We use it as DevOps, and we can see the results with that tool as well. This means that we don't have to use another tool.

WhiteSource helped reduce our mean time to resolution since we adopted the product. More than anything else, it's just shining a light on the work we need to do. We had a lot of legacy code that no one had really explored the software composition analysis on it. The main value is that it showed us what we needed to fix, and with the dashboard security trends feature, we can see over time if we made progress. We had a way to report upward and show our progress. From that respect, it's been very valuable.

The product has helped reduce the number of open-source software vulnerabilities running in our production. It would probably be quite a high number as we didn't really have anything before. I would probably say that we're about 70% through remediating all of the vulnerabilities. This is a good number since nothing existed before.

We've introduced policies as well. If we just rely on good intentions, often people don't follow through. If we have a policy set that makes developers have to stop and fix something, it breaks their workflow in a positive way as it's saying that these are high vulnerabilities. It allows us to set up quite nuanced policies. That has been really useful. Without that, it'd be less effective as a tool.

WhiteSource's portability to integrate with our developers' existing workflows including their IDE, repository, and CI/CD pipelines, is good. It's improving all the time. In terms of integration, it's pretty easy.

If I had to choose one area of improvement, it would be to have the support system in one place. At the moment, all matters regarding support run through Salesforce SaaS solutions.

I'm sure there are more improvements that can happen with WhiteSource’s IDE tool, however, it's still useful. We still have an open ticket regarding some slow scans since we have some fairly complex projects that take a long time to scan. That's been the only slightly negative experience with the tool and we work hard to try to fix it.

WhiteSource is working on a UI refresh. That's probably been one of the pain points for us as it feels like a really old application. Although we are used to it, when filtering lists, we feel like we are using an application from the 1990s. It's my understanding that they have some improvements coming and I hope to take part in a trial for that.

I've also recently looked at their SaaS tool. I've done a trial with it and at the moment it’s a separate product. I'd like to see all of the products merged into one, so that there would be one place to go for everything and all of the support, FaaS, SCA, and more.

We had a trial and then bought the product around 18 months ago.

There was a little hiccup with the Azure DevOps extension. Three or four months ago there was a release that caused a problem, and since then they fixed it. At the time, there was a week or so where we had some issues regarding not being able to scan properly, however, that was fixed reasonably swiftly.

Once, we had a very large codebase that took very long to scan, so much so that it climbed out completely. In addition, we have a codebase that we can't scan effectively as it's either too large or there are some subtle mishaps around it. This is an ongoing investigation with the WhiteSource team.

That ticket has been around for quite a while due to the combination of us being a bit slow and the problem being complex. The problem is still not close to being fixed. 

We have forty contributing developers. They do not necessarily interact with the product every day, however, that's the licensing we have, and they are a mixture of internal teams and third-party contractors.

Technical support is good. They're very friendly and want to solve your problems. When they don't know enough information, they'll go and find some more technical information from their engineering teams.

The knowledge-based articles are useful. Occasionally, they answer questions that you were going to ask anyway, and that saves some time. Overall, their service is good. They're knowledgeable, friendly, and timely.

Positive

This solution is the first of its kind for us.

As part of our security certification 27001, we looked at going to ISO 27017, and that had a few more constraints around software security analysis, mainly the secure development life cycle. We recognized that it was high time. That was the first catalyst, and then we went through an inspection of various products on the market, and that's what led us to WhiteSource. The fact that Microsoft is a big investor and speaks highly of them made a difference.

I was involved in the initial setup of the solution. I worked with the customer success manager and we got it set up pretty quickly. Then, we had a number of follow-up calls where we asked "Is this set up right?" That was six months down the line. The customer success manager had a few points that he pointed out to us and they were useful.

The SSO integration is normally something that can be tricky, however, it was okay. It worked pretty quickly. Everything went okay.

Once we got the administration set up, we introduced it to the various engineering leads in the company, and then they introduced it to their team. That was a fairly painless process. Everyone was on board with wanting to introduce this product and wanted to reap the benefits.

The pricing is good. One of the differentiators between them and their competitors is how they priced the product. Some companies price per run and some price per developer or per language. One thing that was nice about WhiteSource is that they didn't have that. They have a fixed cost for contributing developers, but the number of languages is irrelevant. The number of runs is irrelevant, and that's great. That way, you've got a fixed cost and you know it's not going to get any bigger if you start doing more work unless you add more developers. The pricing is clear and useful.

We didn't do any trials with other products. We mainly researched and understood how the different solutions work.

We do not use the Merge Confidence feature. We also don't use WhiteSource Smart Fix. We might use it in the future, however, it depends on how our teams are doing their co-branching as I would need to give it a try first to see if it works in all scenarios. It's similar to GitHub's Dependabot and it would be interesting to explore.

In terms of using WhiteSource products in conjunction with their SCA product, we've just signed an order on their FaaS one. That will add forty contributing developers. I did a trial with it and I'm looking forward to using that. The FaaS is very timely. We used a tool that Microsoft deprecated, and we were without a SaaS solution, and even the solution we had with Microsoft wasn't really the best one. It was great that this came along at the right time. While we could have gone to another manufacturer for that, it made sense to stick with WhiteSource due to the promise of that integration with SCA and SaaS.

I have not looked at the IAC, or the infrastructure as a code. I suspect it may not cover our use case. We use Bicep, so we do not use Terraform or anything similar. From what I've seen on the market, very few support Bicep at the moment, and Bicep is Microsoft's more elaborate version of their arm templates. It's fairly new. That's why there are not many products on the market. However, if this was something they were to support, I’d be interested.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I know there are more improvements coming, however, there are more improvements needed in terms of the usability of the product. Even items like a mobile-friendly version of it. At the moment it's a fairly old-fashioned website that doesn't work well on other devices and it's generally a bit clunky to use. That said, in terms of reporting vulnerabilities, it's very good.

We use open-source libraries or software in projects across our company. We conducted an internal study regarding the legalities, security, vulnerabilities, and license compliance, which is when we decided to implement and deploy Mend. It automates the software composition analysis, which is vital when we want to use third-party and open-source software. 

We have a total of around 1000 projects running in Mend; some of those are being trialed and may be withdrawn, and others will go on to the production stage. We have between 300 and 400 end users, primarily integrators and fewer admins and approvers.

The tool is now a mandatory part of our organization to use as a benchmark, giving us a technical advantage. When we acquire other companies, we look to determine if Mend is applicable to them and bring them into our culture of using the solution where possible. We can leverage it for financial benefits when implemented and used to scan on the technical front. We consider Mend a permanent integration with our company for the foreseeable future, so we decided to reinvest in the solution by renewing our contract twice up to this point.

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.

The solution is also highly valuable to our Intellectual Property Councils, because as a company that uses open-source software, we need to be aware of intellectual properties, code violations, and adherence to our regulations when we include such software. There are, of course, areas for improvement, but it has become mandatory within our organization to run scans using Mend as part of our workflows.

We don't always use WhiteSource SmartFix, and that depends on the recommendations provided by the solution's analysis. On occasion, we have challenged those recommendations, so for us, the software is not entirely a decision-making tool but a tool that assists us in making decisions. Therefore, there is still a human component in the process, and there is always an admin or approver to accept or reject the recommendation. There have been instances where smart fixes were challenged due to a lack of compatibility with project requirements. For example, the solution recommends a version of PostgreSQL, but the decision is made on the product level to go with a different version because it has better integration with the specific product requirements. However, I would say that SmartFix increases our decision-making effectiveness and successfully alerts us. As a leading lighting company, some product decisions must adhere to strict requirements, which require human involvement in the decision-making process.

Initially, the product didn't save us time but required us to spend more time. Many of our processes require a manual component, so we can't entirely rely on automated processes. Therefore, when we run Mend scans on our projects, around 60% of the software development life cycle is sped up, while the remaining 40% requires human intervention. Per our IP Councils, automation does not help us beyond a certain point, and manual intervention is required. If 60% of a project can be streamlined via automation, that certainly saves us time. 

I would say that Mend certainly helps us detect and reduce vulnerabilities. We bring in the solution at the very beginning of a project, so we build early and often and detect vulnerabilities early. This is a significant contributor to our projects' success. 

Integration using the unified agent and other methodologies has been at the forefront of our deployment. The plugins have been merged into the unified agent approach. The integration methodologies have worked wonders for our CICD pipelines and workflows, and each project team can decide whether to run scans pre or post-build.  

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.

I consider scan reports to be another area for improvement, but this is also an area of improvement for user management on our end. We need to train end users on how to deal with alerts and the best approach to take for new projects.

We have weekly meetings with Mend and encourage all users who integrate the solution into their product life cycle to attend. This has been very useful, as these technical meetings assist our staff in the best use practices and improving their interpretation of reports, which allows us to leverage the product to our greatest advantage. We are also able to ask for solutions adaptations to suit our requirements, as we produce hardware as a company, not virtual products. 

We have been using the solution for almost five years. 

The solution is highly stable; we had downtime on one occasion for two hours, which was scheduled. Aside from that, I haven't seen any downtime or performance issues, so in terms of stability, I rate the product very highly because we can depend on it.

The solution is scalable, and scalability is vital for such an integral piece of software. Software development scenarios can change fast, requiring support for new languages and apps, so we constantly learn and communicate with Mend to fulfil our fluid requirements and adapt to changes within our environment.

I'm delighted with the technical support, especially as someone involved in the deployment. Technical support has been highly responsive to bugs or errors, helping us mitigate or fix them quickly. It was easy to interpret their technical guidance, which made my job much more manageable. I'm very satisfied and would rate them highly.

Positive

We did not use any other solution.

The deployment was mixed; there's always a window in which we are required to adapt to a tool. This solution isn't an out-of-the-box kind of model. There was some fine-tuning involved in the deployment according to our needs and specific projects, which is expected but somewhat challenging nonetheless. 

The key staff involved in the deployment included me as the deployment manager, a customer success manager from Mend, a leading member of our IP Council, and the security advisers for each product. Once the deployment strategy is decided, the IP Council and security team take a back seat, and I work closely with the product architects moving forward. Deployment, fine-tuning, and getting the scans up and running takes two to two and a half days maximum per product. Ultimately, five or six key staff are involved in the solution's deployment, configuration, and maintenance. 

We have seen an ROI for our projects, and our project managers are happy. This could still be improved, however.

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.

We evaluated Black Duck, but it has several limitations that drove us toward choosing Mend. Black Duck is very expensive, and we require a SaaS solution to ensure the privacy of our source code, and they couldn't provide that. Therefore, our team decided to choose the more affordable and secure product.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

As a deployment admin, I would say the solution is straightforward to deploy, and deployment is simply the beginning of the process. Then comes the discipline of running scans along the life cycle of a project and deciding to accept or ignore the yielded alerts. This isn't a daily process, but it's an integral part of every project's workflow, and we have successfully made this an embedded part of our product development. Over time, our users have realized the advantages of using this software and appreciate the deployment.

Our staff must be open to change, especially when adapting to alerts and violations yielded by scans. Every scanned report has its interpretations and challenges, which is where input from the Intellectual Property team and Mend's technical team comes in. They support us throughout the product development process and help us calibrate our interpretations of reports. This gives us a clear picture of whether we are legally and technically conforming to our project and company requirements. 

I'm a deployment manager, so I don't know if the merge confidence feature is used, as I'm not involved in projects throughout the entire development cycle. Some teams may be using it, but I can't say with confidence.

We use the SaaS version of the solution, which provides full compliance when it comes to privacy. At no point can Mend view our source code, and we have a complete legal understanding with them.

We currently don't use any other products in conjunction with the SCA product because we are at the beginning of our exposure to these tools. We are in the process of evaluating the tools, and we have a relatively elaborate process. It's also essential to consider different tools fairly by comparing like with like and having consistent parameters for comparison. That process can take some time and requires some patience. These kinds of evaluations should not be rushed, and it's okay to take weeks or even months to determine if a new tool can be a commercial and technical success within an organization.

It is used to manage open-source associated risks. I'm a consultant, and I provide consultancy and management services in the domain of open-source risk management. I use this product as a part of the services to my customers. I'm not using it in my company because my company is not developing anything.

Its deployment is hybrid where scans are on-premise and the knowledge base is on the cloud.

It saves a lot of money with early fixing. If you can figure out an open-source bug earlier, rather than in production, it can save a lot of, almost 100 times, cost.

It also helps with post-production management because it gives alerts on new vulnerabilities.

The dashboard view and the management view are most valuable.

The pricing model needs some changes. It is being offered in bulks of a minimum of 20 developers, which means that small startups with less than 20 developers cannot afford to buy the minimum bulk. There is no flexible pricing model to choose a plan with partial functionality and for less than 20.

The GUI should support the export of multiple SBOM formats, today this is the transparency expected by federal agencies from companies that write software. 
There is no one standard yet in the industry for SBOM, so leading tools like WhiteSource should be able to support multiple formats.

I have been using this solution for years.

It is very stable.

There are hundreds of users who use this solution.

I have used their support, and they were excellent.

I use multiple solutions, such as Snyk, Black Duck, and Sonatype.

It is quite simple. Its implementation takes days, and its implementation strategy is a part of our management plan.

I'm a consultant, and I help with its implementation. It requires very few people.

There is definitely an ROI.

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.

I evaluated other options, but some of those, such as Protecode, do not exist today. They used to be tools based on the actual reading of the content. They were snippet-based.

My advice would be to get ready for implementation by preparing the right structure. Before implementing this tool, you should define the company policy and processes and get accurate training. This creates trust between the developer and the newly-implemented tool. For instance, when there is a violation of a policy, you need to understand why it happened. You should not try to bypass that just because it would fail the build. Developers' trust is the most important thing. So, you should plan ahead with a clear management program for open-source involving all key holders. Implementation of such a tool requires collaboration. It is not the job of just the development team or the head of security. It is supposed to be a joint effort of the entire development group in a company.

I would rate WhiteSource a nine out of ten.

We have started the trial version of WhiteSource last week. We concluded the trial this week and we are beginning to use the full licensed solution later on in the week.

We use WhiteSource for automating open-source vulnerability, by finding the open-source libraries that were used and fixing them. Additionally, we set up policies to disallow some of the risky open sources to be used in our solutions by developers. We are able to scan and fix vulnerabilities in our containers, to ensure that if there are any licenses that violate the open source usage or put our product at risk, we make sure that either we remove or remediate the open sources with risky licenses. Those are the main three use cases.

We did not have much security compliance implemented in our solutions. Whatever we did, we had to use the AWS built-in OWASP scanning, and we had to manually find out the versions of the open sources that fixed the issues of vulnerability. We then had to make sure that that updated version is sent in and code merged for a test. We found sometimes it took a lot of research to make sure that the version that we are upgrading to did fix the issue, et cetera. However, this is all manual research and is dependent on the knowledge of the developer or the engineer who did this work. It took time and did not ensure a high percentage of security compliance. 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 are saving time that we spent on resources because we no longer have to do it manually. We will now have confidence that there are not many errors made.  We are able to do much more vulnerability fixing than we did manually, there are cost-savings, and less work involved.

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.

I have been using WhiteSource for approximately one week.

We have not used the solution very long to give us a full picture of the stability. However, from what we have seen from the trials it is impressive.

The solution only required a few hours of work from one DevOps engineer in a week.

WhiteSource's scalability is extremely good. We can add more repositories, projects, and people as we need. There's no problem with the scalability. We did not find any slowness, performance stress, or load-related issues when we did the trials. WhiteSource can handle up to a few thousand concurrent users without any issues.

Once we have the solution fully licensed we will have approximately 50 people using it.

Ou usage of WhiteSource will increase as we add more people, but it's going to be the same code base. The number of users will increase, but the scope of the solution usage in terms of the number of solutions will remain the same.

Their pricing is different for many of the solutions we have tried. In Sonatype, especially, the agents are extremely technically knowledgeable. The sales team and the sales engineering we spoke to are extremely knowledgeable. They had 100 percent of all the answers to the questions that we asked. In the case of Snyk, their support had to go and come back to us and their support pricing is very expensive. Even with the trials that we did, we did not try the paid version of their software that included dedicated customer support.

WhiteSource agents are knowledgeable. In a couple of cases, they had to go back and work with the engineering for a resolution. However, the support that is included in the plan that we bought is good. In the other two options, the pricing did not include the ongoing SLA-based support. With WhiteSource, they include SLA-based support, 24/7, in their enterprise plan, which is comparable to the plans with Sonatype and Snyk where they don't include the support.

I rate the support of WhiteSource a seven out of ten.

I rated the solution an eight out of ten because WhiteSource hasn't built in a couple of features that we would have loved to use and they say they're on their roadmap. I'm hoping that they'll be able to build and deliver in 2022.

We use trials of many solutions, such as Snyk and Sonatype.

WhiteSource's initial setup is very straightforward. In all three use cases, it was very straightforward. With Sonatype, we used the on-premise version, but with Snyk and WhiteSource, we used their cloud version. It did take a little time to set up Sonatype, but it was straightforward. We had people helping and guiding us on a Zoom call in all three use cases. It did not take long or was it complicated in either of the use cases. Overall all it took was under an hour.

We did the implementation ourselves with the sales engineers.

We haven't calculated our return on investment in terms of resource savings. While we were doing everything manually, but still we were not able to do everything. Now we have a solution, we can save the human resources that are being paid for. Our return on investment, in terms of our ability to showcase our solutions as secure and sell them, is going to be multifold. I'm expecting, at least, the return on investment of new sales and cross-sales will be at least six times higher.

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

We evaluated many solutions, such as Snyk, Sonatype, SonarQube, Checkmarx, and a couple of others.

When people start looking at solutions that are available for open source, static code analysis, container scanning, and infrastructure as a code, there are many solutions. Many companies have productized these different services into different solutions, but when they sell them they combine everything into one platform. This can be extremely expensive and confusing. In the beginning, it all starts looking like they're all interdependent and buy and use all of them to be able to make them work, which is not the case. Finalize your use cases, what exactly you need a solution for, before even starting your evaluation. For example, our primary use case was open source and open source alone. When we started looking at the solutions, the companies threw at us things that we did not need, and we were confused at some stages. We did not give up and continued our POCs and went into more detail on the solutions that the vendors are offering.

In some cases, we didn't have the ability to evaluate some of the solutions they were providing, because we did not want them. We did not have the solution's codebases. For example, to evaluate some of the features, it's extremely important to discuss internally and make sure your use cases are before starting the evaluation of the solution. During the evaluation, stick to only the solutions or part of the solution that the vendors are providing that satisfies your use cases. Do not go beyond it and pay for something that you will not use once you buy them. It's confusing once you start the trials unless you have not done the background work or homework, you may end up buying things that you don't need at expensive prices.

I rate WhiteSource an eight out of ten.

We use WhiteSource for scanning open source libraries called SCA and both the vulnerabilities and open source licenses. We deployed WhiteSource with Azure DevOps.

WhiteSource is unique in the scanning of open-source licenses. Additionally, the vulnerabilities aspect of the solution is a benefit. We don't use WhiteSource in the whole organization, but we use it for some projects. There we receive a sense of the vulnerabilities of the open-source components, which improves our security work. The reports are automated which is useful.

WhiteSource only produces a report, which is nice to look at. However, you have to check that report every week, to see if something was found that you don't want. It would be great if the build that's generating a report would fail if it finds a very important vulnerability, for instance.

I have been using WhiteSource for a few years.

WhiteSource is a stable solution.

We have approximately 20 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not used technical support.

I have previously used other solutions, such as OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk open-source, and CheckMark

The initial setup of WhiteSource is straightforward.

We did the deployment of the solution ourselves. We used one person for the deployment.

We have received a return on investment.

WhiteSource is a free solution to use.

We evaluated other solutions before choosing WhiteSource. We ended up choosing WhiteSource because of some of its unique features.

I rate WhiteSource a seven out of ten.

The integration with Azure DevOps was good.

The results and the dashboard they provide are good.

It was pretty straightforward for me.

I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version. That would be good.

I used the trial version of WhiteSource for a month. We chose to work with Veracode instead.

It's was pretty stable. I don't have any complaints about the stability of WhiteSource.

I did not have any contact with the technical support. I did not have any issues in the time that I used this solution.

It was approximately $2,000 per year or per month, I don't recall exactly.

When compared with Veracode, Veracode was very very expensive. It was approximately $200,000.00 per year for the whole Suite.

WhiteSource is much more affordable than Veracode.

We are evaluating Veracode.

It was pretty good. I would rate WhiteSource an eight out of ten.

To my knowledge, we are using the latest, SaaS, version. 

The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should. It covers the containers. One can create his teams and, should he encounter an issue, send an alert to the team's DL. 

I am quite happy with WhiteSource. It is very good and provides many things, including extensive reports involving vulnerabilities. 

I am not clear if WhiteSource provides on-premises service. I know that its competitors provide on-premises and SaaS-based services for the same licensing fee and model, but I am not sure if this applies to WhiteSource, as well. I believe it does not. 

It is preferable to use on-cloud services, although on-premises one should equally be an option, if I would prefer to not go for SaaS-based hosting. The licensing model should be the same for the different options. 

The initial setup could be simplified. 

I have been using WhiteSource for more than a year. 

The solution is very stable. 

It is a preferequisite that the solution is scalable, as it is SaaS-based. 

I have not had experience with customer support. 

The initial setup was of an intermediate complexity. It was neither complex, nor straightforward. It could have been easier. Understandably, it involved a certain amount of configuration. 

I cannot comment on billing, as this was handled by other departments in my previous organization. 

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 reason I logged into the IT Central Station web site is because I was looking for crisp documentation so that I may compare WhiteSource with Black Duck. I did not find what I was looking for. All I found was a conglomerate of user experiences, not the research reports I was searching for.

I am currently using both of these products.

I rate Whitesource as an eight out of ten. 

I use the solution for free and open source scanning. 

The solution lacks the code snippet part. I plan to raise this issue with those at WhiteSource.

I have been using WhiteSource for more than a year. 

The solution is scalable. 

The solution is stable. 

The technical support is good, although not the best. It could be more customer friendly. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

Installation took no more than five minutes. 

CI/CD integration required the use of a consultant. 

We did not require much technical team for this. The team consists of four people. 

The solution involves a yearly licensing fee. 

There were only two products at this point in time which we evaluated, the solution being one of these. We plan to reevaluate its use. 

The solution is only cloud-based, not on-premises. 

It is user-friendly. 

There are around 50 people currently using it in our organization. 

I rate WhiteSource as an eight out of ten.