Snyk

Name: Snyk
Brand: Snyk
Rating: 4.4 (369 reviews)

Leader

Trust AI at full speed.

Est 2015|Valuation $7.4B|Raised $1.1B|86 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 118K|Web traffic 1.0M|FTEs 1,550|HQ Boston, Massachusetts, US

MarketsApplication Security Testing (AST)Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP)Code Security SCA

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Snyk vs GHAS - GHAS is selected when organizations require scanning tightly integrated with GitHub and need CodeQL customization. - Snyk is selected when organizations need coverage across multiple SCMs or require a vendor focused on developer-oriented workflows across several artifact types. Snyk vs Veracode - Veracode is often used by organizations with mature enterprise AppSec programs and governance requirements; Snyk targets developer-oriented workflows and CI/CD adoption. - Third-party comparisons note that per-developer pricing can increase costs as engineering headcount grows. Snyk vs Checkmarx - Checkmarx is considered for deep SAST capabilities and enterprise governance; Snyk competes on developer workflow integration and open-source dependency management. Market adoption trends - Public review volume indicates notable adoption. - Press and funding history indicate Snyk has been a significant vendor in the developer security category in recent years.

	Snyk	GitHub Advanced Security (GHAS)	Veracode
Starting Price	Tiered SaaS with per-contributing-developer packaging; tiers vary by module and feature set	Requires GitHub Enterprise context; pricing typically bundled/add-on	Custom/enterprise-style pricing (often positioned at a premium)
Best For	Organizations seeking a developer-oriented AppSec platform covering SCA/SAST/containers/IaC, with DAST available as an add-on	Organizations standardized on GitHub seeking integrated scanning and CodeQL workflows	Enterprise AppSec programs requiring broad platform governance and mature scanning capabilities
Key Strength	Developer workflow integration; broad module coverage; OSS vulnerability handling	Native GitHub integration; CodeQL customization	Mature enterprise AppSec process support and compliance-focused features
Key Weakness	Can be costly at scale; noise/support concerns reported in some reviews; some features gated by tier	Platform lock-in to GitHub; additional tools may be required for broader AppSec coverage	Often higher cost; may be heavier-weight for development teams

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Snyk vs GHAS

GHAS is selected when organizations require scanning tightly integrated with GitHub and need CodeQL customization.
Snyk is selected when organizations need coverage across multiple SCMs or require a vendor focused on developer-oriented workflows across several artifact types.

Snyk vs Veracode

Veracode is often used by organizations with mature enterprise AppSec programs and governance requirements; Snyk targets developer-oriented workflows and CI/CD adoption.
Third-party comparisons note that per-developer pricing can increase costs as engineering headcount grows.

Snyk vs Checkmarx

Checkmarx is considered for deep SAST capabilities and enterprise governance; Snyk competes on developer workflow integration and open-source dependency management.

Market adoption trends

Public review volume indicates notable adoption.
Press and funding history indicate Snyk has been a significant vendor in the developer security category in recent years.

	Snyk	GitHub Advanced Security (GHAS)	Veracode
Starting Price	Tiered SaaS with per-contributing-developer packaging; tiers vary by module and feature set	Requires GitHub Enterprise context; pricing typically bundled/add-on	Custom/enterprise-style pricing (often positioned at a premium)
Best For	Organizations seeking a developer-oriented AppSec platform covering SCA/SAST/containers/IaC, with DAST available as an add-on	Organizations standardized on GitHub seeking integrated scanning and CodeQL workflows	Enterprise AppSec programs requiring broad platform governance and mature scanning capabilities
Key Strength	Developer workflow integration; broad module coverage; OSS vulnerability handling	Native GitHub integration; CodeQL customization	Mature enterprise AppSec process support and compliance-focused features
Key Weakness	Can be costly at scale; noise/support concerns reported in some reviews; some features gated by tier	Platform lock-in to GitHub; additional tools may be required for broader AppSec coverage	Often higher cost; may be heavier-weight for development teams