Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

authentik vs Syft

authentik logo

authentik

Cybersecurity

Open-source identity provider with flexible authentication flows

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: authentik smaller project than Keycloak, with a correspondingly smaller community and fewer integration guides; 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: authentik covers Configurable flows, Syft covers Multi-format output.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which authentik and Syft actually diverge.

Attributes where authentik and Syft differ
AttributeauthentikSyft
Pricing modelOpen-source core with a paid enterprise tierOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsDocker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hostedmacOS, 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 authentik

  • Configurable flows
  • Protocol support
  • Application proxy
  • Modern admin interface

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.

authentik

  • Self-hosted SSO across internal services without commercial identity pricingnot Syft
  • Putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxynot Syft
  • Teams who tried Keycloak and wanted something less heavynot Syft

Syft

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

Where each one falls short

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

authentik

  • Smaller project than Keycloak, with a correspondingly smaller community and fewer integration guides
  • The flow model is flexible but conceptually unfamiliar, and simple setups can feel over-abstracted
  • Enterprise support and some governance features sit behind the paid tier
  • Self-hosted identity is still yours to secure, patch and keep available

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

authentik

Free
  • Open sourceFree
    • Full identity provider
    • All protocols
    • Community support

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 authentik if

  • You need configurable flows.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted.
  • You also want protocol support.
authentik 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 authentik or Syft better?
Neither clearly leads. authentik 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, authentik or Syft?
authentik starts at Free and Syft at Free.
Does authentik or Syft run on more platforms?
authentik runs on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted. Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
Can I use authentik for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is authentik best used for?
authentik is most often used for self-hosted sso across internal services without commercial identity pricing, putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxy, teams who tried keycloak and wanted something less heavy. Of those, self-hosted sso across internal services without commercial identity pricing and putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxy are not what Syft is typically brought in for.
What can authentik do that Syft cannot?
authentik covers Configurable flows, Protocol support, Application proxy, Modern admin interface. Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

authentik: Is authentik free?

The open-source edition is free and complete for most use. An enterprise tier adds support and additional features.

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.

authentik: authentik or Keycloak?

authentik is generally reported as easier to run and administer; Keycloak is more established with a larger community and Red Hat behind it.

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.

authentik: Can authentik protect apps with no login of their own?

Yes. Its application proxy places authentication in front of services that have no built-in authentication.

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 authentik

More on Syft

Keep looking

Other head to heads