Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Syft vs Zipkin

Syft logo

Syft

Cybersecurity

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

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Zipkin logo

Zipkin

Cloud

Distributed tracing system for microservice latency

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.; Zipkin less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • They diverge on capability: Syft covers Multi-format output, Zipkin covers Trace collection and search.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Syft and Zipkin actually diverge.

Attributes where Syft and Zipkin differ
AttributeSyftZipkin
PlatformsmacOS, Linux, Windows, DockerLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted
CategoryCybersecurityCloud

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

  • Trace collection and search
  • Dependency diagram
  • Simple deployment
  • Pluggable storage

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

Zipkin

  • Adding distributed tracing quickly without standing up heavy infrastructurenot Syft
  • Java and Spring Boot estates, where instrumentation support is long-establishednot Syft
  • Small deployments where Jaeger is more than the problem requiresnot 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.

Zipkin

  • Less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • Fewer features: sampling, storage options and UI are all more limited
  • The interface is dated and slower to work with on large trace volumes
  • Tracing alone still leaves metrics and logs in separate tools during an incident

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

Zipkin

Free
  • ZipkinFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • 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 Zipkin if

  • You need trace collection and search.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want dependency diagram.
Zipkin review

Questions people ask

Is Syft or Zipkin better?
Neither clearly leads. Syft starts at Free and Zipkin at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Syft or Zipkin?
Syft starts at Free and Zipkin at Free.
Does Syft or Zipkin run on more platforms?
Syft runs on macOS, Linux, Windows, Docker. Zipkin runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
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 Zipkin is typically brought in for.
What can Syft do that Zipkin cannot?
Syft covers Multi-format output, Broad ecosystem coverage, Binary classifiers, In-toto attestations. Zipkin covers Trace collection and search, Dependency diagram, Simple deployment, Pluggable storage.

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.

Zipkin: Is Zipkin free?

Yes, open source with no licence fee.

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.

Zipkin: Zipkin or Jaeger?

Jaeger has more momentum, more features and CNCF backing. Zipkin is lighter and quicker to stand up, and remains well supported in the Java and Spring ecosystem.

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.

Zipkin: Does Zipkin work with OpenTelemetry?

Yes. OpenTelemetry can export to Zipkin, which is now the usual way to instrument for it.

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 Zipkin

Keep looking

Other head to heads