Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Sourcegraph vs Syft

Sourcegraph logo

Sourcegraph

Developer Tools

Code search and intelligence platform for large codebases with Cody AI assistant

From
$16000/year
Free plan
No
Full reviewWebsite
Syft logo

Syft

Cybersecurity

Generates a software bill of materials from images, filesystems and archives

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Syft has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Sourcegraph enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams; 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.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Sourcegraph and Syft actually diverge.

Attributes where Sourcegraph and Syft differ
AttributeSourcegraphSyft
Starting price$16000/yearFree
Pricing modelsubscriptionOpen source, no licence fee
Free tierNoYes
PlatformsCloud, Self-hostedmacOS, Linux, Windows, Docker
CategoryDeveloper ToolsCybersecurity

Identical on both: 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 Sourcegraph

Nothing recorded that Syft does not also cover.

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.

Sourcegraph

  • Large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositoriesnot Syft
  • Enterprise governance and code ownership trackingnot Syft
  • AI-assisted bug hunting and security pattern detectionnot Syft
  • Onboarding engineers into large unfamiliar codebasesnot Syft
  • Regulatory compliance and code audit trailsnot Syft

Syft

  • Producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires onenot Sourcegraph
  • Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Sourcegraph
  • Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Sourcegraph
  • Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Sourcegraph

Where each one falls short

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

Sourcegraph

  • Enterprise pricing starting at $16k annually creates significant barrier for small teams
  • No free tier or standard plan published; all options require custom sales engagement
  • Complex enterprise-only positioning limits adoption compared to GitHub Copilot's pervasiveness
  • Requires indexing entire codebase; not suitable for small or ephemeral projects

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

Sourcegraph

$16000/year
  • Enterprise$16000/year
    • Scales with team size
    • Credits for AI features per user
    • Deep Search

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 Sourcegraph if

  • You work on Cloud, Self-hosted.
Sourcegraph review

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.
Syft review

Questions people ask

Is Sourcegraph or Syft better?
Neither clearly leads. Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year and Syft at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Sourcegraph or Syft?
Syft has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at $16000/year for Sourcegraph and Free for Syft.
Does Sourcegraph or Syft run on more platforms?
Sourcegraph runs on Cloud, Self-hosted. Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker.
Can I use Syft for free?
Yes. Syft has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Sourcegraph starts at $16000/year.
What is Sourcegraph best used for?
Sourcegraph is most often used for large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositories, enterprise governance and code ownership tracking, ai-assisted bug hunting and security pattern detection, onboarding engineers into large unfamiliar codebases. Of those, large-scale code migrations across hundreds of repositories and enterprise governance and code ownership tracking are not what Syft is typically brought in for.
What can Sourcegraph do that Syft cannot?
Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

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.

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.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on Sourcegraph

More on Syft

Keep looking

Other head to heads