AISafe Labs and Snyk both read your source code looking for vulnerabilities, but they find very different things:
Snyk is a developer security platform best known for dependency scanning, with code scanning (Snyk Code), IaC, DAST and AI pentesting alongside.
AISafe Labs is a state-of-the-art, autonomous and continuous application security platform, powered by code audits and penetration tests that follow a unique methodology built on hackers' expertise, at scale and machine speed.
In this post, we'll cover these differences in more detail, show what each tool found when we ran both against the same open-source application, and answer frequently asked questions about both tools.
This comparison was published on November 6, 2026 and reflects the tools as we tested them then. Pricing and features change often, so check each vendor’s current pages for the latest.
How is AISafe Labs different from Snyk?
1. Every finding is validated
Snyk Code flags risky patterns in data flows. In our benchmark, none of its findings held up as an exploitable vulnerability once we read the code.
AISafe Labs Code Scan validates each finding before reporting it. About 5% of its findings were false positives.
2. It understands how your app is meant to behave
Rule-based scanning can't tell whether one team should be able to read another team's data.
AISafe Labs Code Scan found the classes Snyk Code missed: broken access control between teams and roles, authentication and session handling, tokens leaking through API responses, and race conditions around business limits.
Ready to secure your app?
Comparing AISafe Labs and Snyk
Verdict
Pick AISafe Labs if you:
- want to test your application from a real attacker's perspective
- expect a meticulous audit of your entire codebase, with no false positives to triage
- value a solution that not only reports issues but helps you remediate them and validate the fixes
- want security that runs continuously, reviewing every change across your CI/CD pipeline and developer workflow
Pick Snyk if you:
- want one developer platform that covers dependencies, containers and IaC as well as code
- need fast, rule-based SAST feedback in the IDE and in CI
- already run Snyk across the company and want one place for every finding
How we tested
We ran AISafe Labs and Snyk Code against the same commit of an open-source application, then checked every finding against the source code. Every tool in the benchmark, including AISafe Labs, was scored with the same rules.
- Target: a production open-source web application written in TypeScript, about 310,000 lines in 2,368 TypeScript and JavaScript files. Both tools scanned the same unmodified commit.
- AISafe Labs: Code Scan (SAST) with default settings, run on 4 November 2026.
- Snyk Code: Snyk Code (SAST) with default settings, run on 5 November 2026.
- Verdicts: we traced each finding through the code and gave it one of three verdicts. A real vulnerability is a flaw an attacker can exploit, rated with CVSS 3.1. An informational finding is accurate but not exploitable, such as hardening advice or behaviour the application intends. A false positive is a claim the code does not support.
Results
Snyk Code reported 28 findings, and none was a real vulnerability. AISafe Labs reported 42, of which 22 were exploitable.
 | Snyk Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Findings reported | 42 | 28 |
| Real vulnerabilities | 22 | 0 |
| Informational | 20 | 0 |
| False positives | 0 | 28 |
| Cost of this run | Free | Free |
Where Snyk Code (SAST) did well. It is good at tracing data flows and flagging risky sinks: redirects, request-forging calls, script injection and hardcoded credentials. These are the classes where a scanner's pattern matching works well, and Snyk reports them consistently.
Where Snyk Code (SAST) tended to miss. Each of those findings turned out to be safe once we read the code: a timer given a function rather than code, a proxy locked to fixed hosts, a page that exists only in development, and credentials that live in test fixtures. Meanwhile it missed the classes that depend on how the application is meant to behave: broken access control between teams and roles, authentication and session handling, tokens leaking through API responses and third-party calls, and race conditions around business limits.
Feature comparison
This table covers each product as its vendor describes it, including parts we did not run in the benchmark.
| Feature | | Snyk |
|---|---|---|
| Source code audit | ✓ | ✗ |
| AI SAST | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Secrets detection | ✓ | Paid plans |
| IaC scanning | ✓ | ✓ |
| Black-box pentest | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| White-box pentest | Paid plans | Partial |
| Continuous monitoring | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| Proof of exploitation | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| PR security review | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Fix suggestions | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Jira and Linear sync | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| Self-hosted option | ✓ | ✗ |
✓ available, including on free plans · Paid plans: not on the free plan · ✗ not offered · Not stated: the vendor’s own pages do not say. Checked against each vendor's own pages on 10 November 2026.
Pricing comparison
The two products charge for different things, so the table compares how each one bills and works through two examples from list prices.
| Snyk | |
|---|---|---|
| How it is billed | Credits at $1 each. A code audit is priced by its lines of code and tokens, and the exact cost is shown before it starts | Per contributing developer a month, with a monthly cap on Snyk Code tests (one test per repository scanned) |
| Free plan | Basic: SAST, AI SAST, SCA, secrets, licence risk and IaC, no card required | Yes: 5 projects, 100 Snyk Code tests a month; SCA, SAST, IaC and Container |
| Paid plans | Pro: $40, $100, $250 or $500 a month ($30, $75, $200 or $400 billed yearly), with the same number of credits | Team: $25 per contributing developer a month (5 to 10 developers), 100 projects, 1,000 Snyk Code tests a month |
| Enterprise | Custom credit volumes | Contact sales; credit-based platform subscription, 1 credit = $1 |
| Example: 10 developers, 20 private repositories, one month | $40 a month on Pro ($30 billed yearly), including 40 credits. Code audits of the repositories are extra and priced by their size | 10 × $25 = $250 a month on Team. The Free plan allows 5 projects |
| Example: one full scan of a 300,000-line codebase | Priced by code size; the exact cost is shown before you start | $0: one Snyk Code test, within the Free plan's 100 a month |
List prices in US dollars, before discounts and tax, from each vendor's own pricing page on 10 November 2026. The examples use list prices only.
FAQ
Snyk Code, Snyk's SAST product, is a rule-based scanner. AISafe Labs uses AI agents that validate each finding before reporting it, so its results are real vulnerabilities, including access-control and business-logic defects.
For this comparison, both were free. AISafe Labs Code Scan is included in the free Basic plan, and our Snyk Code run cost nothing either. Paid plans differ, so compare the pricing pages for what you need beyond scanning.
For finding security vulnerabilities in your own code, AISafe Labs covers more classes in our benchmark. Snyk still does things AISafe Labs does not, as listed in the verdict above, so many teams keep both.
Yes. Snyk is strong for dependency and container coverage in CI, and AISafe Labs covers the logic and access-control defects a SAST rule cannot see. Many teams will want both.
Yes, Snyk has a free plan with monthly test limits. Check the pricing table above for what it includes.
