Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Grype vs Syft

Grype logo

Grype

Cybersecurity

Vulnerability scanner for container images and filesystems

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Syft logo

Syft

Cybersecurity

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

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; 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: Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, Syft covers Multi-format output.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Grype and Syft actually diverge.

Attributes where Grype and Syft differ
AttributeGrypeSyft
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows, DockermacOS, Linux, Windows, Docker

Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (Open source, no licence fee), 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 Grype

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

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.

Grype

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

Syft

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

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

Grype

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

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 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 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 Grype or Syft better?
Neither clearly leads. Grype 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, Grype or Syft?
Grype starts at Free and Syft at Free.
Does Grype or Syft run on more platforms?
Grype runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker. Syft runs on 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 Syft is typically brought in for.
What can Grype do that Syft cannot?
Grype covers Image and filesystem scanning, SBOM-driven, Wide ecosystem coverage, Pipeline friendly. Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Grype: Is Grype free?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Grype

More on Syft

Keep looking

Other head to heads