Snyk Vs Semgrep

Introduction

Choosing the right code security tool can make or break your development security strategy. Snyk and Semgrep are often compared for their developer-focused approach to finding vulnerabilities early. Both help teams ship safer code by integrating security checks into development – but each has a different focus. This comparison explores how they stack up and why the choice matters for technical leaders responsible for secure software delivery.

TL;DR

Snyk and Semgrep both help secure your codebase, but they focus on different layers – and both have blind spots. Snyk excels at scanning open-source dependencies and containers, while Semgrep specializes in static code analysis. Aikido Security brings both worlds together in one platform, with far fewer false positives and simpler integration – making it the better choice for modern security teams.

Overview of Snyk and Semgrep

Snyk

Snyk is a developer-first security platform known for finding vulnerabilities in open-source libraries and other components. It started with Software Composition Analysis (SCA) to catch vulnerable dependencies, and later expanded into scanning container images, Infrastructure-as-Code, and even static code via Snyk Code. Snyk’s strength is seamlessly plugging into development workflows (like GitHub, CI/CD pipelines, and IDEs) to alert developers early about risks. It emphasizes “shift-left” security, making it popular among agile DevOps teams. However, Snyk’s broad approach comes with trade-offs in depth and noise, which we’ll discuss.

Semgrep

Semgrep is an open-source static analysis (SAST) tool focused on scanning your source code for bugs and security issues. It uses flexible, rule-based pattern matching to catch everything from security vulnerabilities to code quality mistakes. Semgrep is lightweight and language-aware, enabling it to run fast in CI pipelines without heavy setup. Its key appeal is customization: teams can write their own rules in YAML to target specific patterns, giving great power to adapt scans to their codebase. This developer-centric design has made Semgrep a favorite for those wanting hands-on control over code scanning. But Semgrep’s narrow focus (just code) means it won’t cover open-source package vulnerabilities, containers, or infrastructure issues by default, so it addresses only part of the security puzzle.

Feature-by-Feature Comparison

Security Scanning Capabilities

Snyk’s Coverage: Snyk provides a broad suite of scanning capabilities under one umbrella. It’s strongest in SCA (open-source dependency scanning) – using a vulnerability database to flag risky libraries in your app. Snyk also scans container images and IaC (Infrastructure as Code) configs for known issues, aiming to secure the whole stack. Additionally, Snyk Code offers SAST analysis for your code, though this is a newer area for Snyk and not its core strength. In practice, Snyk is best known for catching known vulnerabilities (like that outdated library with a CVE) and helping developers fix them early.

Semgrep’s Coverage: Semgrep, by contrast, laser-focuses on static code analysis. It excels at catching coding flaws, insecure patterns, and logic bugs in your own code by using hundreds of community-written rules (and the option to write custom ones). It doesn’t have a built-in database of CVEs for open-source packages or scan containers/IaC out-of-the-box. (Semgrep has separate add-ons like “Semgrep Supply Chain” and “Semgrep Secrets,” but those are distinct tools in its ecosystem.) The primary use case is finding issues in the application code itself – e.g. an unsafe use of eval or a missing input sanitization – rather than vulnerabilities in third-party components. This means Semgrep can uncover security bugs that Snyk’s dependency scanner might overlook, but Semgrep will miss anything outside the code (like a vulnerable library version or a misconfigured Docker image).

Key Difference: Snyk takes a wider, component-centric approach (code, dependencies, containers, config), whereas Semgrep takes a deeper, code-centric approach. If you need one tool to scan your open-source packages for known flaws, Snyk has you covered. If you’re more worried about the custom code your team writes, Semgrep’s static analysis is more direct. Both tools leave gaps – Snyk’s static code analysis is not as thorough as Semgrep’s, and Semgrep provides no coverage for supply chain vulnerabilities on its own. Technical leaders often end up using multiple tools or a combined platform (like Aikido) to cover both bases.

Integration & DevOps Workflow

Snyk Integration: One of Snyk’s biggest selling points is how well it fits into developers’ existing workflows. It offers plugins for popular IDEs (so devs get instant alerts while coding), native integrations with GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket, and CI/CD pipeline hooks that can fail builds on security issues. Snyk’s cloud service monitors your repositories; whenever you open a pull request or push new code, Snyk can scan and report issues in the Git provider UI. Developers appreciate that Snyk surfaces results right where they work – though a downside is that Snyk often nudges users into its web dashboard for details, causing context-switching.

Notably, Snyk is a managed SaaS platform, meaning your code (or dependency manifest) is uploaded to their cloud for analysis. This makes setup easier (no servers to maintain), but some companies balk at sending source code outside, and Snyk’s lack of on-premise options can be a blocker for highly regulated environments. Also, Snyk primarily supports cloud repos (if using Snyk SCM integration) – changes like renaming a repo might even break the connection. Overall, integrating Snyk is straightforward if you’re already cloud-based and using common developer tools. It’s a “plug and play” solution for teams practicing DevSecOps, with the caveat that you’ll be working inside Snyk’s ecosystem.

Semgrep Integration: Semgrep’s approach is more flexible and developer-controlled. Being open-source, you can run the Semgrep CLI locally or in CI with minimal fuss – no need to sign up for a service if you don’t want to. This means you can integrate Semgrep scans anywhere: a pre-commit hook, a GitHub Actions workflow, a Jenkins pipeline, you name it. Many teams use the official Semgrep GitHub Action or the CI/CD integrations to add Semgrep checks on every pull request, which then leave comments directly in the code review. This in-line feedback (seeing issues as comments on your PR) makes it easy for developers to fix code issues without switching context to another app.

Semgrep also has an optional SaaS platform (Semgrep App) that aggregates results, provides a UI and team collaboration features – similar to Snyk’s interface but optional. Importantly, you can run Semgrep fully offline if needed, which appeals to teams with strict code privacy requirements. The learning curve to integrate Semgrep is low for basic use (the CLI is straightforward), but tuning it for your environment may require writing or selecting the right rules, which is an extra step we’ll cover in Accuracy. In terms of platform dependencies, Semgrep is tool-agnostic: it doesn’t care which Git system or CI you use, and it doesn’t impose a particular repo hosting (unlike, say, GitHub-only solutions).

This flexibility makes Semgrep a fit for varied workflows, albeit with more manual tuning compared to Snyk’s “click and go” integrations.

Accuracy and Performance

False Positives & Noise: Accuracy is a critical factor for any security tool – too many false positives, and developers start ignoring the tool. Here both Snyk and Semgrep have faced criticism, but in different ways. Snyk’s SAST (code) scanning has a reputation for high false-positive rates in certain languages. Developers often report being flooded with findings that aren’t actual vulnerabilities, which can erode trust in the tool. One reason is Snyk’s rules are mostly generalized and proprietary, giving users limited visibility or control to tweak them.

If Snyk flags something, you can ignore it or patch it – but you can’t easily adjust the rule logic. This “black box” approach sometimes leaves security teams frustrated when they know a finding is a non-issue but keep seeing it flagged. Semgrep, on the other hand, can also produce noisy results out-of-the-box. Because it relies on pattern rules, an untuned Semgrep run may flag lots of potential issues, including minor style problems or false positives, depending on which rulesets you use. In fact, using Semgrep effectively often requires curating your rules to reduce noise – you might start with a broad ruleset and then turn off rules that aren’t relevant or are too noisy.

The upside is you have that control: Semgrep provides rule-level visibility and the ability to modify or suppress specific rules, so over time teams can significantly drive down false positives. In contrast, Snyk doesn’t let you tweak its built-in rules, which can feel like a blunt instrument by comparison.

Misses & Blind Spots: Accuracy isn’t just about false alarms; it’s also about what each tool fails to catch. Because Snyk relies on known vulnerability data for a lot of its findings, it might miss custom-code issues that don’t have a CVE or known signature. Snyk Code (its SAST) attempts to find those, but as noted, it’s a newer player and might not detect complex logical bugs that Semgrep could catch with a well-written rule.

Conversely, Semgrep might not recognize that a certain dependency is vulnerable (unless you wrote a rule to detect a specific version string or usage pattern), so it could completely miss an issue like “update this library, it has a known RCE vulnerability.” Each tool has blind spots: Snyk may overlook certain data-flow or quality issues in code, and Semgrep may overlook vulnerable library versions or config issues by design.

Speed & Performance: Both tools are designed to be relatively fast and CI-friendly, but their performance profiles differ. Snyk’s scans, especially for dependencies, are usually quick (a Snyk Open Source scan might take seconds). Snyk Code’s analysis is cloud-based and can also return results in under a minute for moderate codebases. Semgrep runs locally (or in your CI container) and is pretty lightweight given its thoroughness – a ~50K line codebase might scan in a minute or two. In community tests, Semgrep was slightly slower than Snyk Code for pure code scanning (e.g. 90 seconds vs 45 seconds on a mid-size repo), but still fast enough for CI in most cases.

Both can be run incrementally (only scanning changed code) to speed up feedback on pull requests. It’s worth noting that Snyk’s performance advantage comes partly from cloud resources doing the work, whereas Semgrep’s speed comes from a lean engine that doesn’t try to do deep inter-procedural analysis like heavier enterprise SAST tools. Neither tool significantly impacts build times when configured properly, and both support running in parallel with tests. If your team values real-time feedback, Snyk’s IDE plugin might give instant results as you type, whereas Semgrep’s model is typically to run on save or commit (though it also has IDE extensions, they are less famous).

In summary, both tools are fast enough for practical use, but be prepared to invest time in tuning Semgrep to avoid drowning in false positives, and be aware that Snyk may occasionally flag dozens of issues that developers have to weed through.

Coverage and Scope

Languages and Frameworks: Snyk and Semgrep both tout multi-language support, but their breadth differs. Snyk supports many languages for dependency scanning (basically any language with a package manager, from JavaScript’s npm to Python’s pip to Java’s Maven, etc.). Its SAST (Snyk Code) currently supports major languages like Java, JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, C#, Ruby, PHP, and a few others. However, users have noted that Snyk’s rule coverage varies by language – some ecosystem support is still maturing.

You’ll want to verify if Snyk deeply covers the frameworks you use (for example, it might handle common patterns in Spring or Express, but a more obscure language or framework might have weaker coverage). Semgrep has a wide range of languages supported for pattern scanning – from the popular ones (JS/TS, Python, Java, C, Go, Ruby, etc.) to even niche ones like Terraform configurations and Kotlin. Because Semgrep’s rules are community-driven, language coverage often depends on rule availability. The upside is if Semgrep doesn’t support a new language natively, the team often adds it quickly (or you could write custom patterns with limited syntax).

For most modern stacks, both Snyk and Semgrep will support your language – but Snyk might not catch all framework-specific issues until their rules evolve, and Semgrep might require you to find/write rules for cutting-edge frameworks since it’s pattern-based.

Issue Types: In terms of the types of security issues covered, Snyk is very broad for known vulnerabilities – covering not just code flaws but also config issues (like insecure Docker base images, or misconfigured AWS Terraform scripts) and secret leaks in code. It’s a one-stop-shop for many categories: SAST, SCA, container scanning, IaC scanning, even some license compliance for open-source. However, that breadth can dilute focus – for truly complex code vulnerability patterns, Snyk Code might not have a rule whereas a custom Semgrep rule could catch it. Semgrep’s detection capabilities extend to anything you can codify as a pattern.

Out of the box, it comes with rules for the OWASP Top 10 web app risks, hardcoded credentials, insecure cryptography usage, and more. But notably, Semgrep does not inherently know about CVE databases or container benchmarks – any check for those must be encoded in a rule. In practice, Semgrep’s community has created rules for some known vulnerable dependency patterns (e.g. usage of an API that’s vulnerable in certain library versions), but this is no substitute for a dedicated SCA tool. If a technical leader needs coverage across the entire SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle) – from code to cloud – neither Snyk nor Semgrep alone is sufficient. Snyk misses dynamic/runtime aspects and some deep code logic, while Semgrep misses environmental and dependency risks.

This is where combined platforms or multiple tools come in. For instance, Aikido Security covers both SAST and SCA in one to avoid those gaps, providing broader coverage than either Snyk or Semgrep individually.

Notable Gaps: To summarize scope limitations: Semgrep’s focus is narrow – it doesn’t scan secrets, cloud configs, containers, etc., without help. Snyk’s focus is broad but shallow in code analysis – it might flag lots of dependency and config issues, yet overlook some custom code vulnerabilities or produce superficial insights. Also, Snyk has a few technical limits: for example, it won’t scan very large files (>1 MB) in code analysis, silently skipping them, which could leave unseen risks if you have giant auto-generated code files or data files in your repo. Semgrep doesn’t have such file size limits typically, as you control what to scan. In essence, each tool covers what the other omits: one does open-source and environment scanning, the other does code pattern scanning. Overlapping their coverage requires integration effort or using an alternative that unifies these scans.

Developer Experience

Ease of Use: From a developer’s perspective, Snyk is very user-friendly to start with – you sign up, connect a repo or run a CLI command, and it returns results with references on how to fix. Its UI is polished, and the findings often link to additional information (like CVE details or example fixes) which can be handy. The developer gets guided fixes, especially for open-source vulnerabilities – Snyk can even auto-open a pull request to bump a dependency version for you, which is a nice touch for busy teams. However, developers have complained that using Snyk can become a “vulnerability whack-a-mole”: you fix one issue, and the next scan pops up more, sometimes even re-reporting issues that aren’t actually problems due to lack of context. Also, because Snyk’s detailed info is on their platform, devs must leave their code environment to log into Snyk’s portal for triaging issues. This context-switch can hurt adoption – it feels like an external process rather than part of coding.

Semgrep’s Developer UX: Semgrep takes a more integrated approach to developer experience. When set up to comment on pull requests, developers receive security feedback in the code review itself. This is much more immediate and keeps the remediation workflow alongside the development workflow. Developers can discuss the finding right in the PR, adjust code, and push a fix – all without going to a separate dashboard. Moreover, Semgrep’s findings are often straightforward (“This line looks like a SQL injection risk, consider using parameterized queries”) because the rules can include custom messages.

This clarity and in-context approach tend to make developers less defensive; it feels like code review feedback rather than an external audit. On the flip side, Semgrep may require developers to get involved in tuning rules or handling false positives more than they would with Snyk. The learning curve to write a custom Semgrep rule is not steep (especially for engineers familiar with coding), but it is additional work. Some developers also find the raw output of Semgrep (if not using the PR integration) to be a bit noisy until configured. In terms of UI, the Semgrep app (if you use it) is improving but not as mature or comprehensive as Snyk’s interface for tracking issues across projects. It’s minimal by design – fitting the no-nonsense vibe – but for larger teams, things like workflow tracking, assignment, and historical metrics are less built out.

A technical leader might note that Snyk offers more “enterprise” reporting (dashboards, compliance reports, etc.), whereas Semgrep is focused on delivering alerts to developers in a timely manner. This is a philosophical difference: Snyk tries to be a one-stop platform (with dashboards for managers), while Semgrep prioritizes developer workflow integration and flexibility over fancy dashboards.

Automation & Fixes: Both tools are evolving in how they help remediate issues. Snyk provides automated fix pull requests for dependency issues and will show sample fixes for code issues (often just a snippet from their knowledge base). Semgrep has introduced Semgrep Autofix/Assistant, which uses AI to propose actual code changes for certain findings. For example, if Semgrep finds a dangerous use of eval, the assistant might suggest a safer code snippet to replace it. Early feedback indicates this can save developer time, though it’s not perfect. Snyk’s approach is more traditional – it doesn’t automatically change your code (aside from dependencies) but gives guidance.

Depending on your developers’ preference, they might like Semgrep’s attempt at auto-fixes, or they might prefer Snyk’s explicit references. False Positive Handling: One more note on dev experience: when a finding is not actually a problem, how easily can it be dismissed? In Snyk, you can mark things as ignored (with expiry options), but if the rule triggers in slightly different code, you’ll see it again.

In Semgrep, since you can modify or deactivate the rule entirely, you have a more permanent solution (though you need to be careful not to disable something real). Developers who hate seeing the same false alarm repeatedly might appreciate that Semgrep learns from feedback (when you flag a finding as false, you can adjust the rule to stop flagging that pattern). With Snyk, developers sometimes feel they’re stuck with the tool’s quirks and have to live with certain non-issues or manually filter them out each time.

Pricing and Maintenance

Snyk Pricing: Snyk is a commercial SaaS with a tiered pricing model. It offers a free tier for small-scale or open-source projects (with some limits on number of tests), but serious use at the team or enterprise level requires a paid plan. Snyk typically charges per developer seat (and possibly per project for certain products), which can get expensive as you scale up the engineering team. Organizations often find that as they integrate Snyk across dozens of repos and developers, the bill climbs steeply – sometimes prompting them to selectively scan only critical repos to control costs. Snyk’s enterprise plan adds features like custom SLA reporting and on-prem support (in rare cases), but those come at a premium. In short, Snyk can be one of the pricier tools in this space, and budgeting for it is a consideration for a security leader.

Semgrep Pricing: Semgrep’s core is open-source and free to use. This means you can run unlimited scans via CLI or CI without paying a dime, which is a huge plus for budget-conscious teams. The company behind Semgrep does offer paid enterprise plans (Semgrep Team/Enterprise) that include a managed cloud app, additional rule libraries, and support. Those plans are typically priced per seat as well (i.e., per developer or per project seat). Even so, given that you have the freedom to use the free version, teams often start with Semgrep Community Edition and only consider paying if they need the convenience of the centralized platform or advanced features.

Maintenance, however, is a cost with Semgrep – the operational overhead of managing rules and tooling. In lieu of a subscription, you spend engineer time to keep the rules up to date and triage findings. For a small team with a few repos, this cost is negligible. But for a larger organization, maintaining a large set of custom Semgrep rules and suppressions can become a significant effort. Some companies mitigate this by using the community rule packs and contributing back, effectively outsourcing some maintenance to the community. Still, it’s important to factor in that Semgrep isn’t “free” if you count the engineering time to fine-tune it at scale.

Maintenance & Infrastructure: With Snyk, infrastructure maintenance is minimal – it’s cloud SaaS, so you don’t maintain servers (unless you opt for an on-premise appliance for Snyk, which is uncommon and may incur extra cost). You do need to manage the integration (ensuring each repo is linked, each pipeline has the Snyk step, etc.) and keep the CLI updated if you use it there. Snyk takes care of updating vulnerability databases and improving rules on their end (sometimes those updates can also introduce new findings overnight). Semgrep, when self-hosted, requires you to keep the CLI updated (which is as simple as a pip install or binary download in CI).

If you use the Semgrep App, it’s SaaS and they maintain it, but you might still host an internal deployment if you prefer (that requires a server and some setup). Generally, Semgrep’s maintenance is more about content (rules) than the tool itself.

Pricing Transparency: It’s worth noting that both Snyk and Semgrep enterprise pricing can be a bit complex. Snyk often negotiates custom enterprise deals, and Semgrep’s pricing for the paid tier isn’t publicly plastered, usually requiring contact for a quote. This is where Aikido Security differentiates: Aikido offers a simpler, flat pricing model that doesn’t punish you for adding more projects or developers. It tends to be more predictable and affordable at scale compared to the per-seat costs of Snyk or Semgrep’s paid plans.

Pros and Cons of Each Tool

Snyk Pros:

• Broad Security Coverage: Scans code, open-source dependencies, containers, config files and more in one platform, giving a wide security net.
• Developer-Friendly Integration: Easy to plug into repos, CI/CD and IDEs for automated scanning and quick feedback in dev workflows.
• Actionable Fixes for Dependencies: Provides clear upgrade guidance and even auto pull-requests to fix vulnerable libraries, simplifying remediation for SCA issues.
• Intuitive UI: Polished dashboard with vulnerability details, prioritization hints, and links to further information, which is helpful for developers learning to fix issues.

Snyk Cons:

• High False Positives in SAST: Its static code analysis often flags many non-issues, causing alert fatigue among developers.
• Shallow Code Analysis: Strong in known CVE detection but weaker at finding complex bugs in custom code (no advanced data-flow or runtime analysis like some SAST tools).
• Expensive at Scale: Per-developer pricing can become steep for large teams, and advanced features are locked behind enterprise plans.
• Limited Customization: Closed-source rules with no ability to tweak detection logic; you must wait for vendor updates or use clunky ignore mechanisms if something is misfiring.
• Potential Integration Friction: Requires uploading data to a cloud service (which some orgs can’t allow), and the platform may skip scanning large files or certain files without clear notice.

Semgrep Pros:

• Powerful Static Analysis: Excellent at catching code vulnerabilities and anti-patterns with lightweight rules, covering many languages and frameworks.
• Highly Customizable: Security engineers can write custom rules in YAML to target the patterns relevant to their codebase. This flexibility enables finding issues unique to your application that generic tools would miss.
• Fast and Lightweight: Runs quickly in CI pipelines with minimal impact on build times, and doesn’t require heavy infrastructure or cloud resources to operate.
• Developer-Centric Workflow: Integrates into pull requests and developer tooling, providing immediate, in-context feedback that developers find useful (feels like part of code review rather than an external scanner).
• Open Source and Transparent: The scanning engine and many rule sets are open, allowing teams full visibility into what checks are being performed and the ability to adjust or extend them. No black boxes.

Semgrep Cons:

• Narrow Focus: Only covers code (SAST). Lacks built-in scanning for open-source dependency vulns, secrets, containers, or IaC, so it addresses a limited slice of the security spectrum. Teams will need additional tools for full coverage.
• Noisy Without Tuning: Out-of-the-box rule sets can produce a lot of findings, including false positives, which require upfront tuning to filter out irrelevant rules and reduce noise. This tuning demands security expertise and continuous adjustment as code evolves.
• Maintenance Overhead: Managing a large library of custom rules and keeping them up to date as the codebase and threat landscape changes is an ongoing effort. At enterprise scale, this can become burdensome without dedicated AppSec engineers.
• Limited Context & Prioritization: Findings are based on pattern matches without broader context (e.g. whether the vulnerable code is actually reachable or exploitable in runtime). This can result in a long list of issues without guidance on which ones truly matter, unlike tools that incorporate risk context.
• Fewer Enterprise Features: Lacks some of the governance, reporting, and compliance features that larger organizations might want (e.g. audit logs, role-based access, out-of-the-box compliance checks). Semgrep is improving here, but its core focus remains on empowering devs rather than satisfying auditors.

Aikido Security: The Better Alternative

Modern security teams often need the strengths of both Snyk and Semgrep without the headaches. Aikido Security was built as a unified solution that combines code scanning and dependency scanning into one developer-friendly platform. It covers SAST and SCA together, so you’re not forced to juggle multiple tools.

By bringing together multiple scan types in one place, Aikido can contextualize vulnerabilities and filter out false positives – cutting noise by up to 95%. Fewer false alarms mean developers actually trust the findings. Integration is seamless: Aikido hooks into your repos and pipelines like Snyk, but also delivers results in-line like Semgrep, minimizing friction. Key advantages come from smart automation – for example, AI-powered fixes and prioritization – saving your team time.

Unlike legacy vendors, Aikido keeps things no-nonsense and transparent. Pricing is flat and predictable, avoiding the high per-seat costs that make Snyk or Semgrep expensive at scale. In short, Aikido brings both worlds together in one platform with far less noise and complexity, making it a better choice for teams who want effective security without the usual tool fatigue.

Start a free Trial or request a demo to explore the full solution.