Garnet

Name: Garnet
Brand: Garnet

AI Native

The runtime visibility layer for agentic software. See what your code actually does when it runs.

Est 2021

LinkedIn 795|Web traffic 1K|FTEs 8|HQ Toronto, Ontario, CA

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- **Garnet vs StepSecurity:** Both emphasize GitHub Actions security and runtime insights. Garnet differentiates with kernel-level lineage (eBPF) and runtime assertions. StepSecurity emphasizes governance and broader platform capabilities. Buyers should compare telemetry collection (network/process/file), presentation, enforcement controls, and operational friction. - **Garnet vs Snyk:** Snyk is focused on vulnerability scanning and dependency risk, and is not positioned as ground-truth runtime behavior inside CI runner kernels. Garnet may complement Snyk for threats involving malicious runtime behavior (exfiltration, cryptomining, suspicious child processes) even when no CVE exists. - **Garnet vs CNAPPs (Wiz/Orca):** CNAPPs address cloud posture and workload security more broadly. Garnet is more CI/developer-loop focused; organizations should evaluate primary risk (cloud misconfiguration/workload threats vs CI pipeline supply-chain and agent execution) when selecting a vendor.

	Garnet (garnet.ai)	StepSecurity	Snyk
Starting Price	Published per-run pricing available from the vendor; limited free-run tier available	Published pricing based on contributor count; free trial available	Published per-seat and edition-based pricing available from the vendor
Most suitable for	Teams seeking kernel-level runtime profiles and assertions in GitHub Actions; visibility of execution lineage	Teams focused on GitHub Actions platform security, policies, and runner insights	Teams prioritizing vulnerability scanning (SCA), code/IaC/container scanning integrated into CI
Key Strength	Runtime lineage and assertions as tests integrated into PR/CI feedback	GitHub Actions governance/policies and runner insights	Established vulnerability management workflows and broad ecosystem
Key Weakness	Limited review signal on major review sites; enterprise controls not fully documented publicly; potential CI permissions friction	Pricing model tied to contributor counts may be costly for large contributor bases; telemetry model differs from kernel lineage tools	Not primarily a kernel-level runtime behavior product; may miss unknown malicious behavior absent CVEs

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Garnet vs StepSecurity: Both emphasize GitHub Actions security and runtime insights. Garnet differentiates with kernel-level lineage (eBPF) and runtime assertions. StepSecurity emphasizes governance and broader platform capabilities. Buyers should compare telemetry collection (network/process/file), presentation, enforcement controls, and operational friction.
Garnet vs Snyk: Snyk is focused on vulnerability scanning and dependency risk, and is not positioned as ground-truth runtime behavior inside CI runner kernels. Garnet may complement Snyk for threats involving malicious runtime behavior (exfiltration, cryptomining, suspicious child processes) even when no CVE exists.
Garnet vs CNAPPs (Wiz/Orca): CNAPPs address cloud posture and workload security more broadly. Garnet is more CI/developer-loop focused; organizations should evaluate primary risk (cloud misconfiguration/workload threats vs CI pipeline supply-chain and agent execution) when selecting a vendor.

	Garnet (garnet.ai)	StepSecurity	Snyk
Starting Price	Published per-run pricing available from the vendor; limited free-run tier available	Published pricing based on contributor count; free trial available	Published per-seat and edition-based pricing available from the vendor
Most suitable for	Teams seeking kernel-level runtime profiles and assertions in GitHub Actions; visibility of execution lineage	Teams focused on GitHub Actions platform security, policies, and runner insights	Teams prioritizing vulnerability scanning (SCA), code/IaC/container scanning integrated into CI
Key Strength	Runtime lineage and assertions as tests integrated into PR/CI feedback	GitHub Actions governance/policies and runner insights	Established vulnerability management workflows and broad ecosystem
Key Weakness	Limited review signal on major review sites; enterprise controls not fully documented publicly; potential CI permissions friction	Pricing model tied to contributor counts may be costly for large contributor bases; telemetry model differs from kernel lineage tools	Not primarily a kernel-level runtime behavior product; may miss unknown malicious behavior absent CVEs

Garnet

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

02Market Map