Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Arnica vs Syft

Arnica logo

Arnica

Cybersecurity

AI-native application security platform detecting and fixing vulnerabilities across the SDLC

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Syft logo

Syft

Cybersecurity

Generates a software bill of materials from images, filesystems and archives

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Arnica per-identity pricing ($25-$50/person/year) requires tracking active developers; Syft lockfile parsing can drop packages silently. An open issue filed in August 2026 reports the yarn v1 cataloguer returning 118 of 745 packages with no error raised, which means a complete bill of materials and an 84 percent incomplete one look identical to the caller.
  • They diverge on capability: Arnica covers AI SAST, Syft covers Multi-format output.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Arnica and Syft actually diverge.

Attributes where Arnica and Syft differ
AttributeArnicaSyft
Pricing modelPer-identity subscription with annual discountOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsWeb, GitHub, IDEmacOS, Linux, Windows, Docker

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Cybersecurity).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Arnica

  • AI SAST
  • Software Composition Analysis
  • Secrets detection
  • IaC scanning
  • Container scanning
  • SBOM generation
  • Agentic rules
  • Pipelineless integration

Only in Syft

  • Multi-format output
  • Broad ecosystem coverage
  • Binary classifiers
  • In-toto attestations
  • Library and CLI
  • Pairs with Grype

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Arnica

  • Detecting AI-generated vulnerabilities in Copilot and Cursor suggestionsnot Syft
  • Finding hardcoded secrets before they reach productionnot Syft
  • Mapping container vulnerabilities back to source codenot Syft
  • Generating SBOM for supply chain compliance requirementsnot Syft
  • Scanning infrastructure-as-code for misconfiguration risksnot Syft

Syft

  • Producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires onenot Arnica
  • Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Arnica
  • Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Arnica
  • Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Arnica

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Arnica

  • Per-identity pricing ($25-$50/person/year) requires tracking active developers
  • Overage identity tracking via 90-day PR activity can be unpredictable
  • Free plan limited to weekly updates, requiring upgrade for real-time scanning
  • Advanced add-ons (Image Scanning, AI SAST, Agentic Rules Enforcer) pricing not published
  • On-premises deployment limited to Enterprise tier

Syft

  • Lockfile parsing can drop packages silently. An open issue filed in August 2026 reports the yarn v1 cataloguer returning 118 of 745 packages with no error raised, which means a complete bill of materials and an 84 percent incomplete one look identical to the caller.
  • Fidelity varies sharply by ecosystem. Conan for C and C++, Haskell and Terraform get cataloguer support with no licence data, no dependency relationships and no file ownership, so a C and C++ shop gets the least from it.
  • Binary classification yields no licence or dependency metadata, and vendored or statically linked code is exactly where supply chain risk hides, so the blind spot and the risk overlap.
  • Incorrect CPE values and CPE collisions are recorded as open issues, and since Grype matches on CPE and PURL, an inventory error becomes a false negative in the security report downstream.
  • An inventory is not a risk assessment. Even a perfect bill of materials says a vulnerable version is present, never that the vulnerable function is called, and the triage burden lands entirely on the reader.

Pricing, plan by plan

Arnica

Free
  • FreeFree
    • No credit card required
    • 14-day trial available
    • Weekly risk identification updates
  • Core Business$360/year
    • Monthly billing option at $30/identity/month
    • Annual billing at $25/identity/month (17% discount)
    • Real-time risk scanning and notifications
  • Core Enterprise$720/year
    • Monthly billing option at $60/identity/month
    • Annual billing at $50/identity/month (17% discount)
    • All Core Business features

Syft

Free
  • SyftFree
    • Apache-2.0
    • No usage limits
    • Community support
  • Anchore Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Policy enforcement and reporting
    • Federal and commercial tiers
    • Pricing not published, quoted on request

Which should you pick?

Choose Arnica if

  • You need ai sast.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, GitHub, IDE.
  • You also want software composition analysis.
Arnica review

Choose Syft if

  • You need multi-format output.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
  • You also want broad ecosystem coverage.
Syft review

Questions people ask

Is Arnica or Syft better?
Neither clearly leads. Arnica starts at Free and Syft at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Arnica or Syft?
Arnica starts at Free and Syft at Free.
Does Arnica or Syft run on more platforms?
Arnica runs on Web, GitHub, IDE. Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
Can I use Arnica for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Arnica best used for?
Arnica is most often used for detecting ai-generated vulnerabilities in copilot and cursor suggestions, finding hardcoded secrets before they reach production, mapping container vulnerabilities back to source code, generating sbom for supply chain compliance requirements. Of those, detecting ai-generated vulnerabilities in copilot and cursor suggestions and finding hardcoded secrets before they reach production are not what Syft is typically brought in for.
What can Arnica do that Syft cannot?
Arnica covers AI SAST, Software Composition Analysis, Secrets detection, IaC scanning. Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Arnica: How are identities defined in Arnica pricing?

Identities are any users and other contributing entities that contributed code and/or had PR activity during the last 90 days. This ensures billing matches active developers.

Source
Syft: Does Syft find vulnerabilities?

No. It produces an inventory. Grype, from the same company, matches that inventory against vulnerability feeds. They are separate tools and the distinction is frequently lost.

Arnica: What is the annual discount?

Annual prepayment offers approximately 17% savings versus monthly billing. Core Business annual is $300/identity versus $360 for monthly.

Source
Syft: Does anything in the Anchore stack do reachability analysis?

No. Neither Syft, Grype nor the commercial Anchore platform performs call graph or reachability analysis, so none of them tells you whether a vulnerable code path is actually invoked.

Arnica: Can I cancel or downgrade Arnica anytime?

Yes. Subscriptions can be cancelled or downgraded at any time. Overage identities receive automatic protection with true-up invoicing.

Source
Syft: Is it a CNCF or OpenSSF project?

No. It is single-vendor open source owned by Anchore, with no foundation governance. That is a different licence risk profile from Sigstore.

Syft: What does Anchore Enterprise cost?

Not published. The pricing page is contact-sales only, with named but unpriced commercial and federal tiers.

Syft: How do I know my SBOM is complete?

You largely cannot, which is the honest answer. Silent partial parsing is a known open defect, so a bill of materials used for compliance should be spot-checked against a known dependency list.

Share

Related pages

More on Arnica

More on Syft

Keep looking

Other head to heads