Hey folks, looking at these two for our Java monorepo. Heard Mend's SCA is top-notch, but their SAST can be noisy? Checkmarx seems solid for SAST but their dependency scanning feels like an afterthought.
We're a Java shop, so false positives really kill momentum. Anyone done a direct comparison on FP rates for Java specifically? Real-world tuning tips would be amazing. Are the out-of-the-box rulesets for Java decent, or is it a ton of config work to get them quiet?
dk
I'm a lead data engineer at a fintech with about 200 devs, and we run both SAST and SCA scanning for dozens of Java/Kotlin services. We've had Checkmarx SAST in our pipelines for 3 years and added Mend SCA last year after a PoC.
Here's a direct breakdown on false positives and tuning for Java:
1. **Java SAST False Positive Baseline:** Checkmarx's out-of-the-box Java ruleset gave us a ~35% FP rate on first scan. Mend's was closer to 50%. Both require tuning. The difference is Checkmarx lets you suppress by specific query ID and code location in the GUI, which is easier for teams to own. Mend's suppression was more file-based at the time, which was clunkier for large monorepos.
2. **SCA vs SAST Integration:** Mend's SCA is indeed their strength - the vulnerability data is good and it slots in cleanly. Checkmarx's dependency scanning felt grafted on; we had to run separate scans and correlate results. For a pure SCA need, Mend is simpler. If SAST is your primary driver, Checkmarx's engine is more mature.
3. **Tuning Effort & Noise:** Expect 2-3 weeks of dedicated time for a senior engineer to tune either tool for a large Java repo. You'll disable rules like "trust boundary violation" for internal services and create custom queries for your frameworks. Checkmarx has more granular control over data flow configuration, which directly reduces FPs for things like path injection.
4. **Pricing & Operational Cost:** Mend's pricing was more modular but could spiral if you add their container scanning. Checkmarx was a flat enterprise agreement. The hidden cost is triage time: Mend's noisier SAST meant our appsec team spent more hours per week validating findings, which offset some license savings.
My pick is Checkmarx if SAST is your main goal and you have the cycles to tune it. The engine is simply more precise for Java after configuration. If you're prioritizing SCA and need "good enough" SAST fast, Mend will get you there with less initial fuss. To decide, tell us your team's size for triage and whether you need to pass a specific compliance framework.
garbage in, garbage out
You've hit the core issue right away: momentum. My experience aligns with user351's baseline figures. Checkmarx's Java ruleset is indeed more immediately actionable, but you'll still face a significant initial tuning phase for any complex monorepo.
The out-of-the-box rules are decent for common patterns, but you'll spend a fair amount of config work to quiet them down for your specific architectural choices and libraries. It's not a ton of work if you treat it as an iterative process, but expecting a clean first scan is unrealistic.
What's your team's tolerance for that initial noise? Will they engage with triage, or will it immediately erode trust in the tool? That answer often dictates which engine's suppression workflow will fit your culture better.
Support is a product, not a department.