Cloud · head to head
Longhorn vs Syft

Longhorn
Cloud
Open source distributed block storage for Kubernetes, incubating at the CNCF
- 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: Longhorn there is no vendor and no SLA, so a production incident at three in the morning is your own problem unless you buy SUSE Rancher Prime support separately.; 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: Longhorn covers Per-volume controllers, Syft covers Multi-format output.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Longhorn and Syft actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (Open source, no licence fee), 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 Longhorn
- Per-volume controllers
- Synchronous replication
- Snapshots and backups
- Volume expansion
- Disaster recovery volumes
- Web 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.
Longhorn
- An on-premises Kubernetes cluster with local disks and no SAN that needs replicated persistent volumesnot Syft
- Edge sites where shipping a storage array is impractical and three nodes is the whole clusternot Syft
- A K3s deployment where the storage layer must be light enough to run alongside the workloadsnot Syft
- A team that wants snapshots and S3 backups of persistent volumes without paying per-node storage licencesnot Syft
Syft
- Producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires onenot Longhorn
- Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Longhorn
- Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Longhorn
- Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Longhorn
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Longhorn
- There is no vendor and no SLA, so a production incident at three in the morning is your own problem unless you buy SUSE Rancher Prime support separately.
- Synchronous replication across nodes means write latency depends on the slowest replica and the network between nodes, which makes it a poor fit for latency-sensitive databases.
- Every replica is a full copy, so three-way replication consumes three times the raw capacity, unlike erasure-coded systems that are far more space efficient.
- It is designed for block storage on modest clusters and does not scale to the node counts or throughput that Ceph or a commercial array handles, so growth eventually forces a migration.
- Recovery from certain degraded states, such as a volume stuck detaching or replicas failing to rebuild, requires manual intervention and knowledge of Longhorn internals that is not widely held.
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
Longhorn
Free- LonghornFree
- Apache 2.0 licensed, no licence fee
- Community support via GitHub and Slack only
- No vendor SLA or escalation path
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 Longhorn if
- You need per-volume controllers.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Kubernetes.
- You also want synchronous replication.
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 Longhorn or Syft better?
- Neither clearly leads. Longhorn 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, Longhorn or Syft?
- Longhorn starts at Free and Syft at Free.
- Does Longhorn or Syft run on more platforms?
- Longhorn runs on Linux, Kubernetes. Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
- Can I use Longhorn for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Longhorn best used for?
- Longhorn is most often used for an on-premises kubernetes cluster with local disks and no san that needs replicated persistent volumes, edge sites where shipping a storage array is impractical and three nodes is the whole cluster, a k3s deployment where the storage layer must be light enough to run alongside the workloads, a team that wants snapshots and s3 backups of persistent volumes without paying per-node storage licences. Of those, an on-premises kubernetes cluster with local disks and no san that needs replicated persistent volumes and edge sites where shipping a storage array is impractical and three nodes is the whole cluster are not what Syft is typically brought in for.
- What can Longhorn do that Syft cannot?
- Longhorn covers Per-volume controllers, Synchronous replication, Snapshots and backups, Volume expansion. Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Longhorn: Who do we call when it breaks?
Nobody, unless you buy SUSE Rancher Prime, which includes commercial support for Longhorn. This is the decisive question for production use.
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.
Longhorn: How much capacity does replication cost?
Full copies, so three replicas means three times the raw capacity. Budget accordingly rather than assuming erasure coding efficiency.
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.
Longhorn: Is it suitable for production databases?
For modest workloads yes, but synchronous replication adds write latency and high-transaction databases usually want something faster.
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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Longhorn vs Portworx
- Longhorn vs OpenEBS
- Longhorn vs Proxmox VE
- Longhorn vs Anyscale
- Longhorn vs Go
- Longhorn vs Rancher
- Longhorn vs Packer
- Longhorn vs DeepInfra
- Longhorn vs Serverless Framework
- Longhorn vs Coolify
- Longhorn vs Puppet
- Longhorn vs Qovery
- Longhorn vs Porter
- Longhorn vs VictoriaMetrics
- Longhorn vs Vultr
- Longhorn vs Akamai
- Longhorn vs Vagrant
- Longhorn vs Cosign
- Longhorn vs Sigstore
- Longhorn vs Trivy
- Longhorn vs Chainguard
- Longhorn vs Metasploit
- Longhorn vs Wireshark
- Longhorn vs Semgrep
- Longhorn vs Legit Security
- Longhorn vs OWASP ZAP
- Longhorn vs HashiCorp Vault
- Longhorn vs Bitwarden
- Longhorn vs Infisical
- Longhorn vs Tenable Nessus
- Longhorn vs Transmit Security
- Longhorn vs TrustArc
- Longhorn vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Longhorn vs VMware Carbon Black
- Syft vs Portworx
- Syft vs OpenEBS
- Syft vs Proxmox VE
- Syft vs Anyscale
- Syft vs Go
- Syft vs Rancher
- Syft vs Packer
- Syft vs DeepInfra
- Syft vs Serverless Framework
- Syft vs Coolify
- Syft vs Puppet
- Syft vs Qovery
- Syft vs Porter
- Syft vs VictoriaMetrics
- Syft vs Vultr
- Syft vs Akamai
- Syft vs Vagrant
- 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
