Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Syft vs Veriff

Syft logo

Syft

Cybersecurity

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

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Veriff logo

Veriff

Cybersecurity

Document and biometric identity verification with published per-check pricing

From
$0.8/verification
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Syft has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • 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.; Veriff you pay per verification attempt, not per verified customer, so a confusing capture flow or poor lighting on mobile makes you pay two or three times for one onboarding.
  • They diverge on capability: Syft covers Multi-format output, Veriff covers Document verification.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Syft and Veriff actually diverge.

Attributes where Syft and Veriff differ
AttributeSyftVeriff
Starting priceFree$0.8/verification
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feePer verification
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsmacOS, Linux, Windows, DockerWeb, iOS, Android, API

Identical on both: 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 Veriff

  • Document verification
  • Biometric liveness
  • Hybrid review
  • Screening add-ons
  • Ongoing monitoring
  • Age estimation

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 Veriff
  • Feeding an inventory into a vulnerability scanner rather than scanning images directlynot Veriff
  • Recording what shipped in a build so a future disclosure can be answered quicklynot Veriff
  • Public sector work where an SBOM is a contractual deliverablenot Veriff

Veriff

  • A crypto exchange that needs a published rate to model unit economics before committing to a KYC vendornot Syft
  • A marketplace verifying sellers in dozens of countries where a single document library matters more than depth in one marketnot Syft
  • A mobility platform running age and licence checks at signup with volumes too small for an enterprise contractnot Syft
  • A regulated firm wanting automated decisions by default but human review on borderline cases, priced explicitlynot 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.

Veriff

  • You pay per verification attempt, not per verified customer, so a confusing capture flow or poor lighting on mobile makes you pay two or three times for one onboarding.
  • The headline $0.80 covers the document and selfie check only; adding PEP and sanctions screening at $0.64 nearly doubles the per-check cost, which is the number regulated buyers actually need.
  • Monthly minimums of $49 and $99 are low but real, so a product with seasonal signup patterns pays in quiet months.
  • Automated decision quality varies sharply by document type and issuing country, so a strong global average conceals weak performance in specific markets you may depend on.
  • Standard data retention is short and extending it to two years is a $0.30 per verification add-on, which matters because most financial regulators require records for five years or more.

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

Veriff

$0.8/verification
  • Essential$0.8/verification
    • Fully automated decisions
    • $49 per month minimum
    • Documents from 230+ countries
  • Plus$1.39/verification
    • Hybrid automation with human review
    • $99 per month minimum
    • Enhanced fraud prevention for regulated industries
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Volume pricing negotiated
    • Dedicated support and custom SLAs
    • Custom data retention and residency terms

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 Veriff if

  • You need document verification.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android, API.
  • You also want biometric liveness.
Veriff review

Questions people ask

Is Syft or Veriff better?
Neither clearly leads. Syft starts at Free and Veriff at $0.8/verification, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Syft or Veriff?
Syft has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Syft and $0.8/verification for Veriff.
Does Syft or Veriff run on more platforms?
Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker. Veriff runs on Web, iOS, Android, API.
Can I use Syft for free?
Yes. Syft has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Veriff starts at $0.8/verification.
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 Veriff is typically brought in for.
What can Syft do that Veriff cannot?
Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations. Veriff covers Document verification, Biometric liveness, Hybrid review, Screening add-ons.

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.

Veriff: What does a verification actually cost?

$0.80 on Essential or $1.39 on Plus, before add-ons. Sanctions and PEP screening adds $0.64 and ongoing monitoring $0.09 per verification.

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.

Veriff: Are failed attempts charged?

Sessions are charged, so retries by the same user generally cost you again. Ask for the exact billing definition of a session before signing.

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.

Veriff: How long is data retained?

The default retention period is short and two-year extended retention is a paid add-on at $0.30 per verification, which is worth checking against your regulatory record-keeping obligations.

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 Veriff

Keep looking

Other head to heads