Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Grype vs Infracost

Grype logo

Grype

Cybersecurity

Vulnerability scanner for container images and filesystems

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Infracost logo

Infracost

Cloud

Cloud cost estimates in pull requests, with governance in the paid tier

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Grype depends on public vulnerability databases, so coverage and false positives vary by ecosystem; Infracost usage-based resources such as object storage, serverless functions and data transfer have no cost without monthly usage figures supplied by hand, and the documentation warns plainly that engineers otherwise read them as free.
  • They diverge on capability: Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, Infracost covers Pull request cost diffs.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Grype and Infracost actually diverge.

Attributes where Grype and Infracost differ
AttributeGrypeInfracost
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feeFree open source tool, then per month by run volume
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows, DockerWeb, macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker
CategoryCybersecurityCloud

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 Grype

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

Only in Infracost

  • Pull request cost diffs
  • Multi-format parsing
  • Apache-2.0 CLI
  • FinOps policies
  • Automated remediation
  • IDE integration

What people use each for

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

Grype

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

Infracost

  • Teams that want an expensive infrastructure change questioned at review rather than discovered on an invoicenot Grype
  • Platform groups enforcing tagging so cloud spend can be attributed to a team at allnot Grype
  • Organisations adopting FinOps practice without buying a full cloud management platformnot Grype
  • Engineers who want a cost figure in the editor while writing the Terraformnot Grype

Where each one falls short

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

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

Infracost

  • Usage-based resources such as object storage, serverless functions and data transfer have no cost without monthly usage figures supplied by hand, and the documentation warns plainly that engineers otherwise read them as free.
  • Splitting production from non-production usage assumptions is not supported in the free usage file, which the docs attribute to a missing project filter, so that separation requires the paid product.
  • The step from 250 to 1,000 dollars a month is large and the Cloud tier includes only ten admin seats, with developer seats charged at a figure that is not published, so the cost for a large organisation cannot be computed from the pricing page.
  • Estimates are list price. Negotiated agreements, committed use discounts and reserved instance economics require SKU-level overrides available only on Enterprise, so the number in the pull request is not the number on the bill.
  • The share of the product covered by the Apache-2.0 licence is shrinking. Checks, automated fixes, policies and agent integrations are all hosted-only, so the permissive licence increasingly protects the estimation engine rather than the product.

Pricing, plan by plan

Grype

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

Infracost

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 1,000 runs a month
    • Terraform, CloudFormation and CDK estimates
    • Community support
  • Starter$250/month
    • 10,000 runs a month
    • Email support
  • Cloud$1000/month
    • Ten admin seats, developer seats charged separately
    • FinOps policies and cost guardrails
    • Dashboards and audit trails
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • SKU-level price overrides for negotiated rates
    • Business unit reporting
    • SSO with SAML group mapping

Which should you pick?

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

Choose Infracost if

  • You need pull request cost diffs.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
  • You also want multi-format parsing.
Infracost review

Questions people ask

Is Grype or Infracost better?
Neither clearly leads. Grype starts at Free and Infracost at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Grype or Infracost?
Grype starts at Free and Infracost at Free.
Does Grype or Infracost run on more platforms?
Grype runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker. Infracost runs on Web, macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
Can I use Grype for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Grype best used for?
Grype is most often used for re-scanning stored sboms as new cves are published, without rebuilding images, failing ci when a build introduces a known vulnerability, auditing what is actually installed inside a third-party image. Of those, re-scanning stored sboms as new cves are published, without rebuilding images and failing ci when a build introduces a known vulnerability are not what Infracost is typically brought in for.
What can Grype do that Infracost cannot?
Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, SBOM-driven, Wide ecosystem coverage, Pipeline friendly. Infracost covers Pull request cost diffs, Multi-format parsing, Apache-2.0 CLI, FinOps policies.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Grype: Is Grype free?

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

Infracost: Is the open source version genuinely useful on its own?

Yes, for estimation. It parses your definitions and produces breakdowns and diffs locally. What it does not do is comment on pull requests, enforce policy or report across an organisation, all of which are hosted-only.

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.

Infracost: Will the estimate match my cloud bill?

No. It is list price. Committed use discounts, enterprise agreements and reserved instances need SKU-level overrides that sit in the Enterprise tier.

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.

Infracost: Why do my S3 and Lambda resources show no cost?

Usage-based resources need monthly usage values supplied in a usage file or defined centrally. Without them they estimate at zero, which is the documented behaviour and the most common way the tool misleads.

Infracost: Has the licence ever changed?

No. The command line tool has been Apache 2.0 throughout, with no Business Source or AGPL episode, which is unusual in this category.

Infracost: What is a run?

Not defined on the public pricing page, and the run allowance is what separates the free and Starter tiers, so establish the definition before choosing between them.

Share

Related pages

More on Grype

More on Infracost

Keep looking

Other head to heads