Cybersecurity · head to head
Syft vs Vault

Syft
Cybersecurity
Generates a software bill of materials from images, filesystems and archives
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
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.; Vault vault 1.15.0 and later is licensed under the Business Source License 1.1, not an OSI open source licence, with IBM Corporation as licensor
- They diverge on capability: Syft covers Multi-format output, Vault covers Secrets management.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Syft and Vault actually diverge.
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 Syft
- Multi-format output
- Broad ecosystem coverage
- Binary classifiers
- In-toto attestations
- Library and CLI
- Pairs with Grype
Only in Vault
- Secrets management
- Encryption
- Authentication
- Authorization
- Audit logging
- API access
- High availability
- Replication
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 Vault
- Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Vault
- Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Vault
- Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Vault
Vault
- Centrally storing and rotating secrets, API keys and database credentialsnot Syft
- Issuing short-lived dynamic credentials to applications instead of static passwordsnot Syft
- Encryption as a service and PKI certificate issuancenot 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.
Vault
- Vault 1.15.0 and later is licensed under the Business Source License 1.1, not an OSI open source licence, with IBM Corporation as licensor
- The Additional Use Grant forbids offering Vault to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis in a paid product that competes with IBM's paid versions of Vault
- Each version only converts to MPL 2.0 four years after that version is published, and the Change Date is tracked per version
- Replication, HSM support, namespaces, performance standby nodes, FIPS builds, control group authorisation, multi-factor authentication, secrets sync and lease count quotas all require a Vault Enterprise licence
- A Vault Enterprise licence must be applied to the cluster before any Enterprise feature can be used
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
Vault
Free- Open SourceFree
- Secrets management
- Encryption as a service
- Identity management
- EnterpriseFree
- Advanced features
- Premium support
- Dedicated updates
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.
Choose Vault if
- You need secrets management.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Windows, Mac, Cloud.
- You also want encryption.
Questions people ask
- Is Syft or Vault better?
- Neither clearly leads. Syft starts at Free and Vault at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Syft or Vault?
- Syft starts at Free and Vault at Free.
- Does Syft or Vault run on more platforms?
- Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker. Vault runs on Linux, Windows, Mac, Cloud.
- 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 Vault is typically brought in for.
- What can Syft do that Vault cannot?
- Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations. Vault covers Secrets management, Encryption, Authentication, Authorization.
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.
Vault: Is HashiCorp Vault free to use?
Yes, Vault is available as a free, open-source project. The community version includes secrets management, certificate generation and rotation, encryption services, and credential management. Vault Enterprise is a commercial offering with additional features.
SourceSyft: 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.
Vault: What are the differences between open-source Vault and Vault Enterprise?
Open-source Vault is free and self-hosted. Vault Enterprise includes additional features and commercial support. HashiCorp also offers Vault Dedicated on the HashiCorp Cloud Platform as a fully managed cloud option.
SourceSyft: 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.
Vault: Can I try HashiCorp Cloud Platform Vault without payment?
Yes, HashiCorp offers a free trial option for HCP Vault Dedicated. New users also receive a $500 credit to use across HashiCorp Cloud Platform services.
SourceSyft: What does Anchore Enterprise cost?
Not published. The pricing page is contact-sales only, with named but unpriced commercial and federal tiers.
Vault: What does Vault manage and protect?
Vault provides identity-based secrets management for users, machines, services, and AI agents. It automates authentication and authorization for access to secrets, passwords, certificates, encryption keys, and other sensitive data across your infrastructure.
SourceSyft: 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
- 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
- Syft vs AWS (Amazon Web Services)
- Syft vs DigitalOcean
- Syft vs Grafana Cloud
- Syft vs Neon
- Syft vs Crossplane
- Syft vs Microsoft Azure
- Syft vs Podman
- Syft vs Hetzner Cloud
- Syft vs Linode
- Syft vs Vultr
- Syft vs Akamai
- Syft vs Alibaba Cloud
- Syft vs CapRover
- Syft vs Chef
- Syft vs Buildah
- Vault vs Cosign
- Vault vs Sigstore
- Vault vs Trivy
- Vault vs Chainguard
- Vault vs Metasploit
- Vault vs Wireshark
- Vault vs Semgrep
- Vault vs Legit Security
- Vault vs OWASP ZAP
- Vault vs HashiCorp Vault
- Vault vs Bitwarden
- Vault vs Infisical
- Vault vs Tenable Nessus
- Vault vs Transmit Security
- Vault vs TrustArc
- Vault vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Vault vs VMware Carbon Black
- Vault vs AWS (Amazon Web Services)
- Vault vs DigitalOcean
- Vault vs Grafana Cloud
- Vault vs Neon
- Vault vs Crossplane
- Vault vs Microsoft Azure
- Vault vs Podman
- Vault vs Hetzner Cloud
- Vault vs Linode
- Vault vs Vultr
- Vault vs Akamai
- Vault vs Alibaba Cloud
- Vault vs CapRover
- Vault vs Chef
- Vault vs Buildah

