Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Avo vs Grype

Avo logo

Avo

Developer Tools

Analytics governance: define a tracking plan, generate typed code from it, and catch drift before release

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite
Grype logo

Grype

Cybersecurity

Vulnerability scanner for container images and filesystems

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Avo editor seats are the metered unit and only five are included on the Team plan, so a company where many squads define their own events pays 50 dollars per additional editor and the real cost quickly exceeds the headline 250.; Grype depends on public vulnerability databases, so coverage and false positives vary by ecosystem
  • They diverge on capability: Avo covers Tracking plan, Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Avo and Grype actually diverge.

Attributes where Avo and Grype differ
AttributeAvoGrype
Pricing modelPer editor seat per monthOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsWeb, iOS, Android, Web SDK, APILinux, macOS, Windows, Docker
CategoryDeveloper ToolsCybersecurity

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

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 Avo

  • Tracking plan
  • Code generation
  • Inspector
  • Branching and approvals
  • Schema sync
  • Stakeholder access
  • Audit trail
  • Data design standards

Only in Grype

  • Image and filesystem scanning
  • SBOM-driven
  • Wide ecosystem coverage
  • Pipeline friendly

What people use each for

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

Avo

  • A product team whose iOS and Android event names have drifted apart, making cross-platform funnels meaninglessnot Grype
  • An analytics lead who wants tracking changes to go through review rather than appearing in production unannouncednot Grype
  • A company migrating between analytics tools that needs a canonical event schema independent of any vendornot Grype
  • An engineering organisation that wants event tracking mistakes caught by the compiler rather than by an analyst three months laternot Grype

Grype

  • Re-scanning stored SBOMs as new CVEs are published, without rebuilding imagesnot Avo
  • Failing CI when a build introduces a known vulnerabilitynot Avo
  • Auditing what is actually installed inside a third-party imagenot Avo

Where each one falls short

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

Avo

  • Editor seats are the metered unit and only five are included on the Team plan, so a company where many squads define their own events pays 50 dollars per additional editor and the real cost quickly exceeds the headline 250.
  • Avo governs event definitions but does not fix historic data, so an organisation with years of inconsistent tracking still faces the backfill problem it cannot solve.
  • Code generation requires engineering teams to adopt generated modules in their build, and in practice some platform teams resist, leaving parts of the estate ungoverned and the plan only partly enforced.
  • Inspector event volume is capped by tier, at 100,000 on free and one million on enterprise, so a high-traffic consumer product samples rather than observes everything and drift can hide in the unobserved portion.
  • It is an additional tool in an analytics stack that already costs money, and justifying it requires the organisation to accept that its existing data is unreliable, which is a political argument as much as a budgetary one.

Grype

  • Depends on public vulnerability databases, so coverage and false positives vary by ecosystem
  • No triage, exception tracking or reporting UI — that is Anchore’s commercial product
  • Overlaps heavily with Trivy, and most teams pick one rather than running both

Pricing, plan by plan

Avo

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 2 editor seats
    • Unlimited comment seats
    • 100,000 events observed in Inspector
  • Team$250/month
    • 5 editor seats included
    • Additional editors at $50 per month annually
    • Approval workflows and branch audits
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Custom seats and event volume
    • 1,000,000 events observed in Inspector
    • Enforceable approval and design standards

Grype

Free
  • GrypeFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Which should you pick?

Choose Avo if

  • You need tracking plan.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android, Web SDK, API.
  • You also want code generation.
Avo review

Choose Grype if

  • You need image and filesystem scanning.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker.
  • You also want sbom-driven.
Grype review

Questions people ask

Is Avo or Grype better?
Neither clearly leads. Avo starts at Free and Grype at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Avo or Grype?
Avo starts at Free and Grype at Free.
Does Avo or Grype run on more platforms?
Avo runs on Web, iOS, Android, Web SDK, API. Grype runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker.
Can I use Avo for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Avo best used for?
Avo is most often used for a product team whose ios and android event names have drifted apart, making cross-platform funnels meaningless, an analytics lead who wants tracking changes to go through review rather than appearing in production unannounced, a company migrating between analytics tools that needs a canonical event schema independent of any vendor, an engineering organisation that wants event tracking mistakes caught by the compiler rather than by an analyst three months later. Of those, a product team whose ios and android event names have drifted apart, making cross-platform funnels meaningless and an analytics lead who wants tracking changes to go through review rather than appearing in production unannounced are not what Grype is typically brought in for.
What can Avo do that Grype cannot?
Avo covers Tracking plan, Code generation, Inspector, Branching and approvals. Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, SBOM-driven, Wide ecosystem coverage, Pipeline friendly.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Avo: Is the free tier usable in production?

Yes. It includes two editors, code generation and 100,000 events observed in Inspector, which is enough for a small team.

Grype: Is Grype free?

Yes, open source from Anchore. Anchore Enterprise is the paid platform around it.

Avo: What exactly does code generation give me?

Type-safe tracking functions per platform, so a wrong event name or property type fails at compile time rather than in production data.

Grype: What is the difference between Grype and Syft?

Syft generates the software bill of materials; Grype matches that inventory against vulnerability data. They are designed to be used together.

Avo: Does Avo replace Amplitude or Mixpanel?

No. It governs the events those tools receive; you still need an analytics product.

Grype: Grype or Trivy?

They cover similar ground. Trivy is broader out of the box, including misconfiguration and secret scanning; Grype pairs more cleanly with an SBOM-first workflow.

Avo: How much is the Team plan?

250 US dollars a month billed annually for five editors, or 300 billed monthly, with extra editors at 50 dollars.

Share

Related pages

More on Avo

More on Grype

Keep looking

Other head to heads