APIs · head to head
Convoy vs Syft

Convoy
APIs
Open source webhooks gateway you self-host, handling both sending and receiving
- 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: Convoy the default deployment is self-hosted, so you operate Convoy plus Postgres and Redis and carry the on-call burden for the system that delivers your customers' events.; 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: Convoy covers Inbound and outbound, Syft covers Multi-format output.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Convoy and Syft actually diverge.
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 Convoy
- Inbound and outbound
- Broker-driven ingestion
- Payload transformation
- Portal links
- Circuit breaking
- Retry policies
- OpenTelemetry export
- Role-based access control
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.
Convoy
- A fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party SaaS for compliance reasonsnot Syft
- A high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licencenot Syft
- A team that also receives webhooks from many providers and wants ingestion, verification and deduplication in the same gatewaynot Syft
- An engineering group that wants webhook delivery driven directly from an existing Kafka or SQS topicnot Syft
Syft
- Producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires onenot Convoy
- Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Convoy
- Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Convoy
- Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Convoy
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Convoy
- The default deployment is self-hosted, so you operate Convoy plus Postgres and Redis and carry the on-call burden for the system that delivers your customers' events.
- Frain Technologies is a small startup, and putting customer-facing delivery infrastructure on it means accepting real vendor continuity risk on a component that is hard to swap out quickly.
- The premium tier at a flat 999 US dollars a month is poor value below substantial volume, while the community edition omits the portal, transformations and RBAC that most production deployments end up wanting.
- The hosted cloud trial is capped at one project and 100 events a day, which is too small to properly evaluate the service before committing.
- Documentation and the third-party ecosystem are thinner than the established webhook services, so unusual configurations often mean reading the Go source.
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
Convoy
Free- CommunityFree
- Self-hosted open source gateway
- Inbound and outbound webhooks
- Automatic retries and message broker support
- Premium$999/month
- Flat rate irrespective of message volume
- Portal links and payload transformation
- RBAC, circuit breaking and white labelling
- Enterprise$undefined/year
- SAML SSO
- Dedicated support with SLA
- On-premises deployment assistance
- Cloud$undefined/month
- Hosted by Convoy
- 14 day trial limited to one project and 100 events a day
- Usage-based tiers above the trial
Syft
Free- SyftFree
- Apache-2.0
- No usage limits
- Community support
- Anchore Enterprise$undefined/year
- Policy enforcement and reporting
- Federal and commercial tiers
- Pricing not published, quoted on request
Which should you pick?
Choose Convoy if
- You need inbound and outbound.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
- You also want broker-driven ingestion.
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 Convoy or Syft better?
- Neither clearly leads. Convoy 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, Convoy or Syft?
- Convoy starts at Free and Syft at Free.
- Does Convoy or Syft run on more platforms?
- Convoy runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud. Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
- Can I use Convoy for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Convoy best used for?
- Convoy is most often used for a fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party saas for compliance reasons, a high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licence, a team that also receives webhooks from many providers and wants ingestion, verification and deduplication in the same gateway, an engineering group that wants webhook delivery driven directly from an existing kafka or sqs topic. Of those, a fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party saas for compliance reasons and a high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licence are not what Syft is typically brought in for.
- What can Convoy do that Syft cannot?
- Convoy covers Inbound and outbound, Broker-driven ingestion, Payload transformation, Portal links. Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Convoy: Is Convoy really open source?
Yes, the community edition is open source and self-hostable, covering both inbound and outbound webhooks with retries.
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.
Convoy: What does premium cost?
A flat 999 US dollars a month, self-hosted, regardless of message volume.
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.
Convoy: Does it receive webhooks as well as send them?
Yes, inbound ingestion with verification and deduplication is a first-class feature, unlike most webhook services.
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.
Convoy: Do I have to self-host?
No, there is a hosted cloud, but the trial is capped at 100 events a day and self-hosting is the primary model.
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
- Convoy vs Kong
- Convoy vs Svix
- Convoy vs Tyk
- Convoy vs Janus Gateway
- Convoy vs Appwrite
- Convoy vs Gravitee
- Convoy vs Spring Cloud Gateway
- Convoy vs Formance
- Convoy vs AWS API Gateway
- Convoy vs Hasura
- Convoy vs PocketBase
- Convoy vs Sensedia
- Convoy vs Sila
- Convoy vs Swagger
- Convoy vs TIBCO Mashery
- Convoy vs Zeplo
- Convoy vs Kong Gateway
- Convoy vs Cosign
- Convoy vs Sigstore
- Convoy vs Trivy
- Convoy vs Chainguard
- Convoy vs Metasploit
- Convoy vs Wireshark
- Convoy vs Semgrep
- Convoy vs Legit Security
- Convoy vs OWASP ZAP
- Convoy vs HashiCorp Vault
- Convoy vs Bitwarden
- Convoy vs Infisical
- Convoy vs Tenable Nessus
- Convoy vs Transmit Security
- Convoy vs TrustArc
- Convoy vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Convoy vs VMware Carbon Black
- Syft vs Kong
- Syft vs Svix
- Syft vs Tyk
- Syft vs Janus Gateway
- Syft vs Appwrite
- Syft vs Gravitee
- Syft vs Spring Cloud Gateway
- Syft vs Formance
- Syft vs AWS API Gateway
- Syft vs Hasura
- Syft vs PocketBase
- Syft vs Sensedia
- Syft vs Sila
- Syft vs Swagger
- Syft vs TIBCO Mashery
- Syft vs Zeplo
- Syft vs Kong Gateway
- Syft vs Cosign
- Syft vs Sigstore
- Syft vs Trivy
- Syft vs Chainguard
- Syft vs Metasploit
- Syft vs Wireshark
- Syft vs Semgrep
- Syft vs Legit Security
- Syft vs OWASP ZAP
- Syft vs HashiCorp Vault
- Syft vs Bitwarden
- Syft vs Infisical
- Syft vs Tenable Nessus
- Syft vs Transmit Security
- Syft vs TrustArc
- Syft vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Syft vs VMware Carbon Black
