CYBRET vs Snyk: reachable paths, not CVE lists.
Snyk surfaces known vulnerabilities across your code, dependencies, containers, and infrastructure. CYBRET reasons about which of those findings actually reach a real attacker, then proves it with autonomous validation. The two tools answer different questions, and most security teams need both for a year before they decide.
Snyk is a finding factory. CYBRET is a path closer.
Snyk grew out of dependency intelligence. Its strength is breadth across the software supply chain: SCA, SAST, container, IaC, and a steadily expanding database of known CVEs and license issues. It runs inside developer workflows, gates pull requests, and produces a stream of issues for engineering and AppSec teams to triage. That stream is the product.
CYBRET starts where Snyk ends. We ingest findings (yours, Snyk's, anyone else's) and ask a different question: of these 3,204 findings, which ones have a reachable path from an unauthenticated attacker to sensitive data, and can we prove it without a human running the exploit. In benchmarks, we regularly collapse thousands of findings into one or two real attack paths, because most CVEs are unreachable, gated by authentication, or behind runtime feature flags that Snyk has no way to see.
Capability comparison
Honest read: Snyk is the better tool when you need broad CVE coverage in dependencies and a dev-first workflow. CYBRET is the better tool when the question is whether a finding is exploitable in your specific deployment and what to fix first.
| Capability | Snyk | CYBRET |
|---|---|---|
| Dependency CVE coverage | Class-leading | We ingest yours |
| SAST language breadth | 20+ languages, mature | 12 languages, growing |
| Container & IaC scanning | First-party | Via integration |
| Reachable path analysis (code -> cloud -> data) | Limited (intra-repo only) | Core product |
| Business logic vulnerabilities (BOLA, BFLA, mass assignment) | Not in scope | 37 detectors, 100% recall on Juice Shop / crAPI / VAmPI |
| Autonomous proof-of-exploit | No | Yes, runs the exploit safely |
| Knowledge graph across code, identity, runtime | No | Yes, single graph |
| IDE and PR-time gating | Excellent | Available, not the focus |
| Runtime call-trace correlation | No | Yes (Runtime Detection) |
| Deploys in customer VPC | SaaS-first | VPC default |
| Compliance posture | SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 | SOC 2 audit underway · ISO 27001 Stage 2 scheduled · GDPR DPA |
Don't rip out what works.
Snyk's dependency database is one of the deepest commercial CVE feeds in the market. Their license compliance data is solid, their SCA fix-suggestion ergonomics are mature, and their developer workflow integration (CLI, IDE, Git, container registries) sets the bar for AppSec adoption. If you have thousands of repos and need to feed CVE intel into pull requests at the speed of CI, Snyk earned that role.
Their SAST engine has improved meaningfully over the past three years, and their IaC and container coverage closes a real gap for teams that don't have a separate CSPM. We respect the product. Our objection is not that Snyk does what it does; it's that finding lists, no matter how dense, do not answer the only question that matters at 4pm on a Friday: which of these is actually exploitable, and can we prove it before the on-call engineer goes home.
Three things Snyk cannot do, by design.
1. Reachability across the full graph.
CYBRET builds a single knowledge graph that links code symbols to API routes to identities to cloud resources to data classifications. When a CVE lands, we ask whether an unauthenticated request can traverse code and infrastructure to reach the vulnerable function with attacker-controlled input. Snyk's reachability is intra-repo at best; ours runs end to end. On a recent enterprise pilot, 3,204 Snyk findings collapsed to one reachable path because everything else was gated, dead code, or behind a feature flag.
2. Business logic reasoning, not pattern matching.
Most of the breaches that hit the news (broken object-level authorization, mass assignment, race conditions, identity confusion) are not CVEs. They are logic bugs that exist in your specific code. CYBRET reasons about identity flow, ownership predicates, and intent invariants. Our scanner achieved 18/18 on OWASP Juice Shop and 100% recall on the public crAPI and VAmPI benchmarks, including categories Snyk does not detect at all.
3. Autonomous validation, not just detection.
For every reachable path, our Validation product writes and safely executes a proof-of-exploit, then attaches the trace to the finding. You walk into the standup with a video and a curl command, not a severity score. Snyk has no equivalent; their model ends at the issue list.
You don't have to choose.
The most common deployment we see is: keep Snyk gating PRs and feeding CVE data, point CYBRET at the same repos plus your runtime and cloud, and let our reachability engine decide which Snyk findings make it onto the remediation backlog. We ingest Snyk SARIF natively. After 30 days, most teams keep Snyk for breadth and use CYBRET as the single triage view.
For teams that want to consolidate, we can replace Snyk for SAST and business-logic detection on the repos we cover today. Dependency CVEs remain a strong Snyk use case; we will tell you that to your face during sales rather than after you sign. Our pricing is per closed path, so you pay for outcomes, not coverage.
Questions buyers actually ask.
Does CYBRET replace Snyk?
For most teams, no. Snyk is excellent for dependency CVEs and developer-workflow gating. CYBRET sits above your scanners (Snyk included) and tells you which findings are actually reachable and exploitable.
Can CYBRET ingest Snyk results?
Yes. We accept Snyk SARIF and JSON exports out of the box, plus webhook-driven imports. Findings flow into our knowledge graph and get reachability scoring within minutes.
How does pricing compare?
Snyk charges per developer or per scan. CYBRET charges per closed path: a fixed price for each validated, reachable issue you remediate. Teams with high finding volume but few real paths usually save money.
What languages does CYBRET cover today?
Twelve languages with full reasoning support, including Python, TypeScript, Go, Java, Kotlin, Ruby, PHP, C#, and the JVM family. Snyk covers more languages for surface SAST; we cover fewer with deeper analysis.
Is the autonomous validation safe to run?
Yes. Validation runs in a sandboxed clone of your environment by default, with explicit allowlists for production. Every action is logged and reversible, and customers can require human approval per exploit class.
Where does CYBRET deploy?
In your VPC by default. We support AWS, GCP, and Azure. Data does not leave your tenancy. Compliance roadmap (SOC 2 audit underway, ISO 27001 Stage 2 scheduled, GDPR DPA available) is published on the trust page.
Bring your Snyk findings. We'll tell you which ones are reachable.
Most pilots run for 14 days, ingest existing scanner data, and produce a ranked list of reachable paths in the first 72 hours. No agent install required to start.
Book a working sessionSee pricing