Comparison
LyraShield AI vs Snyk
How LyraShield AI compares to Snyk for AI-built application security. Evidence states, retest workflows, coverage framework and deployment model differences.
Last reviewed:
Where we differ
- A launch verdict in three states: ready, not ready or insufficient evidence.
- Every finding keeps its evidence state, and a fresh retest confirms a fix.
- Fix proposals wait for a human approval before any pull request opens.
Swipe comparison tables horizontally to read every column.
Core approach
| Aspect | LyraShield AI | Snyk |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Release assurance for AI-built apps: one record of what was tested, the evidence behind each result and what a retest established before shipping | Vulnerability scanning and dependency analysis |
| Scanning approach | Deterministic scanners and AI-assisted review run as separate coverage layers, never a universal guarantee | Multi-engine: DeepCode AI for SAST, vulnerability DB for SCA, image analysis for containers |
| Finding lifecycle | Detected → retest-confirmed or inconclusive | Open → fixed (re-test confirms scanner can no longer replicate) |
| Control framework | Vibe Security 50 (43 code/URL review + 7 evidence-required) | No published control framework; uses vulnerability databases (CVEs, custom rules) |
| Coverage reporting | Per-control coverage receipts: completed, limited, skipped, not-applicable | Per-finding severity and fix suggestions; no per-control coverage receipts |
| Fix handling | Recorded fix proposals; a Fix PR request needs permission and a server-generated patch | AI fixes that the developer reviews and applies with one click |
| AI-generated code focus | Built specifically for AI-built apps; scans agent rules, agent instruction files and AI patterns | DeepCode AI engine; LLM library tracking (OpenAI, HuggingFace, Anthropic, Google) |
| Assurance record | Checksum-bound assurance report assembling coverage, findings, evidence states, retest outcomes and limitations | No release assurance record; vulnerability-based reporting |
Capability comparison
| Capability | LyraShield AI | Snyk |
|---|---|---|
| SAST (static analysis) | Deterministic + AI-assisted (separate layers) | DeepCode AI |
| SCA (dependency scanning) | Via engine | Yes (vulnerability DB) |
| Container scanning | No | Yes (Snyk Container) |
| IaC scanning | Yes — deterministic Terraform, Kubernetes, Compose and Dockerfile checks | Yes (Snyk IaC) |
| Secret scanning | Yes (engine + GitHub Action) | Yes (Snyk Secrets, generally available since 4 August 2026) |
| Evidence states | Yes (3 states: detected, retest-confirmed, inconclusive) | No |
| Deterministic retest | Yes | Re-test (scanner replication) |
| Coverage receipts | Yes (per-control) | No |
| Assurance reports | Yes (checksum-bound snapshots) | No |
| Reviewed fix proposals | Fix PR requests require permission and a server-generated patch | Fixes are reviewed and applied by the developer |
| MCP server integration | Yes (runs checks and records evidence inside AI coding agents) | Yes (local MCP server in the Snyk CLI and Snyk Studio; no hosted remote server) |
Deployment and pricing
| Aspect | LyraShield AI | Snyk |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Hosted + CLI + MCP + GitHub Action | SaaS, Private Cloud (AWS), CLI, IDE plugins, CI/CD |
| Pricing | See pricing for current plan details | Check the vendor’s current pricing or sales quote |
| Languages | 13 source extensions; 7 dependency ecosystems | 19+ languages (Java, JS, Python, Go, C/C++, PHP, Ruby, .NET and more) |
When to use which
Use LyraShield AI when
- You need release assurance — a reviewable record of what was tested and the evidence behind it — rather than a vulnerability list, before a ship decision
- Your app is AI-built and you need coverage of AI-specific patterns (agent rules, agent instruction files, prompt injection)
- You need recorded fix proposals and permission-gated Fix PR requests tied to a server-generated patch
- You need checksum-bound assurance reports with coverage receipts for compliance or client handoff
- You want security checks inside your AI coding agent via MCP
Use Snyk when
- You need comprehensive SCA with a mature vulnerability database
- You need container and IaC scanning
- You want IDE-integrated vulnerability scanning during development
- You need autofix suggestions for known vulnerability patterns
Teams can run both: Snyk for continuous vulnerability scanning and dependency management and LyraShield AI for the release check before deployment.
Start a check
LyraShield AI is live and open for registration — create an account and run your first authorized check through the release-assurance loop: target, review, evidence, fix, retest, report. Prefer to explore first? Read the evidence methodology or try the free browser-local tools.
Where Snyk is genuinely strong
Snyk is the developer security platform most development teams already run. Its platform page describes Snyk Code for SAST, Snyk Open Source for SCA, Snyk Container, Snyk Infrastructure as Code and Snyk Secrets, all integrated into IDEs, the CLI and CI pipelines. Its documentation describes automated fix pull requests for dependencies, and the same platform page describes a risk-based approach that focuses effort on issues with meaningful impact.
Snyk has moved aggressively into AI and agentic security. The platform page describes Agentic Development Security to govern what coding agents use and generate, AI Security Posture Management for code-first governance and Continuous Offensive Security with AI pentesting. Its announcement of Evo covers the offensive side.
Its free tier is genuinely accessible. Its plans page lists SCA, SAST, IaC and container scanning with real-time code scanning and IDE integrations. Its DeepCode AI page describes the analysis engine behind Snyk Code, and its supported languages list covers 19 or more languages.
Sources
- Snyk platform
- Snyk plans
- Snyk DeepCode AI
- Snyk supported languages
- Snyk named a Leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for AST
- Snyk automatic upgrade PRs
- Snyk Evo announcement
Methodology and scope
This comparison describes published capabilities, not an independent test of either product. Client workflow availability and commercial terms can change. Read how LyraShield tests, records evidence and reports coverage for its assurance model and verify vendor details before a purchasing decision.
LyraShield pricing
Trial: 60 one-time agent-minutes; Starter $29/month; Pro $99/month; Agency $499/month; Enterprise from $1,500/month.
View pricing and plan limitsFrequently asked questions
- Does LyraShield replace Snyk?
- No. Snyk is a broad developer-first platform covering SAST, SCA, container, IaC and secrets with IDE plugins and a mature vulnerability database; it is a Leader in Gartner AST (Snyk's own announcement: https://snyk.io/blog/snyk-named-a-leader-in-the-2025-gartner-r-magic-quadrant-tm-for-application/). LyraShield in open beta is narrower: agentic pentest plus SCA and secrets focused on checksum-bound release assurance with reviewed fix proposals.
- Can I use Snyk and LyraShield together?
- Teams can run both. Use Snyk for continuous scanning throughout the SDLC and its fix PRs, then run LyraShield for the release check: scoped evidence, detected candidates and retest outcomes in a checksum-bound report. LyraShield's SARIF comes from the GitHub Action, which writes to the same code scanning view.
- When should I choose Snyk over LyraShield?
- Choose Snyk when you need one platform for continuous scanning across code, dependencies, containers and infrastructure, with broad language support and risk-based prioritization. Check Snyk’s current pricing and limits with the vendor. Choose LyraShield when you need scoped evidence to inform a release review for an AI-built app.
- What does LyraShield add over Snyk Code?
- Snyk Code finds vulnerabilities in source and suggests AI autofixes. LyraShield adds a target, review, evidence, fix, retest, report loop: it attempts checks against an authorized target, records detected candidates separately from retest-confirmed outcomes and records fix proposals for review before the team merges a change. Each outcome remains bound to its retained evidence and scope.
What happens next
Run the free Lite Check on your own app, then start a trial to review the repository behind it.