Mend
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Mend's? The following comparison table enables you to discern
the performance of both providers across various attributes essential for meeting your company’s cybersecurity
needs. To better understand each attribute, read their descriptions in the
dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Mend
|
|
Focus
|
In-house scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
289 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%,
IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 24%, IT 9%, sales 14%,
marketing 6%, operations 3% and others 44%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+3%, -4%, -5%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO
and US
|
IL and US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR,
BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
IL, PL and US | |
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
8.84 from 200 reviews over 10 years on
G2, Gartner and PeerSpot
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
47K based on the following: Facebook,
LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Forrester, Frost & Sullivan,
Gartner, IDC and Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2011
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$121.2M USD in 5 rounds from 8
investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Acquired 0 times and made 3
acquisitions
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 100M
|
|
| CVEs as CNA Researcher |
150 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC
2 Type II and SOC
3
|
ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II
|
|
|
Bug bounty
|
Yes
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
80K per month. Top 3: 14% US, 11% DE,
9% CN. Others 66%
|
|
|
Authority
|
41 out of 100
|
||
| Public vulnerability DB |
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, data sheets, documentation,
reports, videos, webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation
sections, 6 in common
and 7 additional
|
6 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use
courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its 64 partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS and Azure | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
PoV
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplaces and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
|
Minimum term
|
Annually
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Annually
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST,
containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
Binary SAST, containers, IaC, SAST, SCA
and secrets
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
1 developer
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Developers
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
83.33 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Mend
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability
research
|
|
SLA
|
Availability and support | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95%
per minute LTM
|
>= 99.5% per year
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
DevOps ISV Competency, Security ISV
Competency and CNA
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards,
8 in common and 59
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
8 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated
tools, AI and
human intelligence
|
Automated tools and AI
|
|
|
Remediation
|
5,
4 in common and 1 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
4, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5,
4 in common and 1
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
9, 4 in common and 5 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Mend
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities,
2 in common and 3
additional
|
Same,
plus 1 functionality
|
3 functionalities, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources,
1 in common and 3 additional
|
2 sources, 1 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS v4.0 and EPSS
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package
managers, 14 in common and 9
additional
|
15 package managers, 14 in common and 1
additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages,
3 in common and 9
additional
|
3 languages, all in common
|
|
| Reachability type |
Deterministic
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package
managers, 8 in common and 14
additional
|
10 package managers, 8 in common and 2 additional | |
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Containers
|
4 distributions,
all in common
|
14 distributions, 4 in common and 10
additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12,
11 in common and 1 additional
|
26 languages, 11 in common and 15
additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
22,
1 in common and 21 additional
|
2, 1 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
Package managers
|
|
IaC
|
6,
3 in common and 2 additional
|
4,
1 in common and 3 additional
|
5, 4 in common and 1 additional
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary,
none in common
|
Same,
plus 2 types of binaries
|
4 types ofbinaries, none in common
|
|
DAST
|
No
|
||
|
API security testing
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets
types, 4 in common and 11
additional
|
Same,
plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
21 secrets types, 4 in common and 17
additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions,
1 in common and 2
additional
|
1 function in common | |
|
MCP
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy
information)
|
||
| Regions |
EU and IL
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
1 per year
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Mend
|
|
SCM
|
6,
4 in common and 2 additional
|
4, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
5
|
|
Ticketing
|
3,
1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
1 |
|
IDE
|
3,
2 in common and 1 additional
|
7, 2 in common and 5 additional
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 9
in common and 12 additional
|
9, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native and 1 integration
|
||
|
Container
|
Native | ||
|
SAST
|
Native and 1 integration
|
||
|
DAST
|
2
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None |
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information
were mend.io and docs.mend.io, which were supplemented by specialized
information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Mend
Free trial
Search for vulnerabilities in your apps for free with Fluid Attacks' automated security testing! Start
your 21-day free trial and discover the
benefits of the Continuous
Hacking Essential plan. If you prefer the
Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' hacking team, fill out this contact form.