Cybersecurity · head to head
Chainguard vs Syft
Chainguard
Cybersecurity
Secure-by-default open source software with hardened container images and libraries
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Syft
Cybersecurity
Generates a software bill of materials from images, filesystems and archives
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Chainguard containers Catalog at 19,000 USD/year expensive for teams under 10 people; 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: Chainguard covers Hardened container images, Syft covers Multi-format output.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Chainguard and Syft actually diverge.
| Attribute | Chainguard | Syft |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Licensing by artifact type and team size | Open source, no licence fee |
| Platforms | Cloud, Container, VM | macOS, 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 Chainguard
- Hardened container images
- CVE remediation SLA
- SLSA L2/L3 builds
- Sigstore signatures
- SBOM generation
- Language libraries
- VM images
- Artifact scanning
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.
Chainguard
- Deploying hardened container images with minimal attack surfacenot Syft
- Meeting supply chain security requirements for regulated industriesnot Syft
- Reducing CVE exposure with contractual remediation guaranteesnot Syft
- Building secure language packages with automatic backportsnot Syft
- Verifying artifact provenance with Sigstore signaturesnot Syft
Syft
- Producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires onenot Chainguard
- Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Chainguard
- Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Chainguard
- Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Chainguard
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Chainguard
- Containers Catalog at 19,000 USD/year expensive for teams under 10 people
- Per-image pricing for containers requires custom quotes with no transparency
- Free tier limited to 5 container images for testing
- Libraries pricing by ecosystem and developer count lacks transparent per-developer cost
- VM image catalog pricing opacity makes cost estimation difficult
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
Chainguard
Free- Free TierFree
- Five container images to test and deploy
- Containers Per-Image$undefined/custom
- Licensed by quantity and type
- Base images, application images, AI/ML images, FIPS variants
- Custom pricing per image
- Containers Catalog$19000/year
- For 10-person engineering teams
- 2,000+ container images
- Contractual CVE remediation SLAs
- Libraries Licensing$undefined/custom
- Licensed by ecosystem (Python, Java, JavaScript)
- Licensed by developer count
- Unlimited pulls with no metering
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 Chainguard if
- You need hardened container images.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Cloud, Container, VM.
- You also want cve remediation sla.
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.
Questions people ask
- Is Chainguard or Syft better?
- Neither clearly leads. Chainguard 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, Chainguard or Syft?
- Chainguard starts at Free and Syft at Free.
- Does Chainguard or Syft run on more platforms?
- Chainguard runs on Cloud, Container, VM. Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
- Can I use Chainguard for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Chainguard best used for?
- Chainguard is most often used for deploying hardened container images with minimal attack surface, meeting supply chain security requirements for regulated industries, reducing cve exposure with contractual remediation guarantees, building secure language packages with automatic backports. Of those, deploying hardened container images with minimal attack surface and meeting supply chain security requirements for regulated industries are not what Syft is typically brought in for.
- What can Chainguard do that Syft cannot?
- Chainguard covers Hardened container images, CVE remediation SLA, SLSA L2/L3 builds, Sigstore signatures. Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Chainguard: How much is the Chainguard Containers Catalog?
The Containers Catalog is 19,000 USD per year for 10-person engineering teams, providing access to 2,000+ hardened container images.
SourceSyft: 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.
Chainguard: What SLAs does Chainguard offer?
Chainguard provides contractual CVE remediation SLAs: 7 days for critical vulnerabilities, 14 days for high/medium/low severity, all with priority support.
SourceSyft: 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.
Chainguard: Can I try Chainguard before purchasing?
Yes. The free tier includes five container images for testing and deployment, allowing hands-on evaluation.
SourceSyft: 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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Chainguard vs Snyk
- Chainguard vs Trivy
- Chainguard vs Doppler
- Chainguard vs Infisical
- Chainguard vs Grype
- Chainguard vs Arnica
- Chainguard vs HashiCorp Vault
- Chainguard vs Bitwarden
- Chainguard vs Semgrep
- Chainguard vs Authelia
- Chainguard vs Endor Labs
- Chainguard vs Tenable
- Chainguard vs Hanwha Vision
- Chainguard vs Idira
- Chainguard vs IVPN
- Chainguard vs Logto
- Chainguard vs Malwarebytes
- Chainguard vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
- Chainguard vs Cosign
- Chainguard vs Sigstore
- Chainguard vs Metasploit
- Chainguard vs Wireshark
- Chainguard vs Legit Security
- Chainguard vs OWASP ZAP
- Chainguard vs Tenable Nessus
- Chainguard vs Transmit Security
- Chainguard vs TrustArc
- Chainguard vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Chainguard vs VMware Carbon Black
- Syft vs Snyk
- Syft vs Trivy
- Syft vs Doppler
- Syft vs Infisical
- Syft vs Grype
- Syft vs Arnica
- Syft vs HashiCorp Vault
- Syft vs Bitwarden
- Syft vs Semgrep
- Syft vs Authelia
- Syft vs Endor Labs
- Syft vs Tenable
- Syft vs Hanwha Vision
- Syft vs Idira
- Syft vs IVPN
- Syft vs Logto
- Syft vs Malwarebytes
- Syft vs Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
- Syft vs Cosign
- Syft vs Sigstore
- Syft vs Metasploit
- Syft vs Wireshark
- Syft vs Legit Security
- Syft vs OWASP ZAP
- Syft vs Tenable Nessus
- Syft vs Transmit Security
- Syft vs TrustArc
- Syft vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Syft vs VMware Carbon Black