Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Syft vs Trivy

Syft logo

Syft

Cybersecurity

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

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Trivy logo

Trivy

Cybersecurity

Open-source vulnerability and misconfiguration scanner

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: 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.; Trivy reports what public advisory databases know, so coverage varies by ecosystem and unfixed CVEs create noise
  • They diverge on capability: Syft covers Multi-format output, Trivy covers Multi-target scanning.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Syft and Trivy actually diverge.

Attributes where Syft and Trivy differ
AttributeSyftTrivy
PlatformsmacOS, Linux, Windows, DockerLinux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes

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 Syft

  • Multi-format output
  • Broad ecosystem coverage
  • Binary classifiers
  • In-toto attestations
  • Library and CLI
  • Pairs with Grype

Only in Trivy

  • Multi-target scanning
  • Vulnerability detection
  • Misconfiguration checks
  • Secret detection

What people use each for

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

Syft

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

Trivy

  • Failing a pull request when a container image introduces a known CVEnot Syft
  • Scanning Terraform and Kubernetes manifests for misconfiguration before applynot Syft
  • Catching committed secrets as part of an existing CI stepnot Syft

Where each one falls short

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

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.

Trivy

  • Reports what public advisory databases know, so coverage varies by ecosystem and unfixed CVEs create noise
  • No built-in triage or exception workflow, so suppressing accepted risk is managed in config files
  • Findings are point-in-time from CI, with no continuous runtime monitoring unless you add the commercial platform

Pricing, plan by plan

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

Trivy

Free
  • TrivyFree
    • Full scanner
    • Unlimited scans
    • Community support

Which should you pick?

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

Choose Trivy if

  • You need multi-target scanning.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
  • You also want vulnerability detection.
Trivy review

Questions people ask

Is Syft or Trivy better?
Neither clearly leads. Syft starts at Free and Trivy at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Syft or Trivy?
Syft starts at Free and Trivy at Free.
Does Syft or Trivy run on more platforms?
Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker. Trivy runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
Can I use Syft for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Syft best used for?
Syft is most often used for producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires one, feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directly, recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quickly, public sector work where an sbom is a contractual deliverable. Of those, producing a bill of materials for a customer or regulator that requires one and feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directly are not what Trivy is typically brought in for.
What can Syft do that Trivy cannot?
Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations. Trivy covers Multi-target scanning, Vulnerability detection, Misconfiguration checks, Secret detection.

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.

Trivy: Is Trivy free?

Yes, open source from Aqua Security with no licence fee. Aqua sells a commercial platform around it.

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.

Trivy: What can Trivy scan?

Container images, filesystems, Git repositories, Kubernetes clusters and infrastructure-as-code, for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, secrets and licences.

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.

Trivy: Does Trivy need a server?

No. It is a single binary, which is a large part of why it became a default in CI.

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 Syft

More on Trivy

Keep looking

Other head to heads