apisec compared to Snyk

apisec vs Snyk: the short answer

Snyk is a developer-first application security platform. Snyk Code, Snyk Open Source, Container, IaC and API & Web find possible flaws, and its Evo agents work to fix the backlog. Evo Continuous Offensive Security adds AI pentesting of running applications.

apisec is an Application Exploit Validation platform. It discovers every application from SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure, builds a graph of how each one operates, and generates exploits that attempt to compromise the live application. It delivers a SAST report, an SCA report and, most important, actionable exploits that go to the top of the fix queue. It tests with or without source code, including third-party and cloud framework code that SAST and SCA can't see.

The core difference: Snyk's answer to a growing backlog is to fix all of it, faster, with agents. apisec's answer is to prove which items an attacker can actually use, clear the rest with evidence, and confirm every fix, with a deterministic harness that gives the same answer every run. apisec is built as the successor to code-only testing, for teams whose problem is no longer finding issues but knowing which ones are real.

apisec vs Snyk at a glance

• Category. Snyk: AI security platform for developers. apisec: Application Exploit Validation.
• Main products. Snyk: Snyk Code, Snyk Open Source, Container, IaC, API & Web (DAST), Secrets, Evo Agentic AppSec, Evo Continuous Offensive Security and Evo AI-SPM. apisec: apisec Surface, apisec App Model and apisec Exploit Testing.
• Where it starts. Snyk: the repositories and projects you connect. apisec: an inventory from SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure, with or without source code.
• Approach to the backlog. Snyk: fix it, with Evo agents generating fixes and aiming for "backlog zero." apisec: prove it, confirming what an attacker can use and clearing the rest with evidence.
• Runtime testing. Snyk: DAST on every meaningful change, plus AI pentesting for deeper, reasoning-driven assessments when you run them. apisec: every exploit runs against the live application, continuously, from the App Model's graph.
• How results are decided. Snyk: reasoning-capable AI for pentesting and deterministic engines for code analysis. apisec: a deterministic harness decides what's real, and models help generate exploits.
• How a fix is confirmed. Snyk: offensive testing acts as an independent check that fixes hold. apisec: the same exploit reruns and flips from confirmed to cleared.
• Best for. Snyk: developer-first security in the IDE, pull request and coding agent. apisec: knowing what an attacker can actually use across every application, and proving it's closed.

What Snyk does well

Snyk built its name on developer-first security, and it now calls itself the AI security company. Its platform, per snyk.io, covers:

• Snyk Code for static analysis, and Snyk Open Source for dependencies
• Snyk Container, Snyk IaC and Snyk Secrets
• Snyk API & Web, its DAST for running web applications and APIs
• Evo Agentic AppSec, a team of agents for code scanning, dependency firewalling, security review and remediation
• Evo Continuous Offensive Security, which combines AI pentesting, agent red teaming and DAST, and targets BOLA, privilege escalation and business logic flaws
• Evo Agentic Development Security and Evo AI-SPM for securing coding agents and AI usage

Snyk's strengths are its reach into developer workflows, from the IDE and pull request to the coding agent itself, a large vulnerability database, and a clear stance that the system that generates code shouldn't be the one that validates it.

The question Snyk leaves open: which findings are worth fixing?

Snyk's own data makes the case that the backlog is out of control. In its Evo Agentic AppSec launch, Snyk reported that:

• New critical and high-severity issues across its customers grew 10x in the past year
• Roughly 8 new vulnerabilities are introduced for every one remediated
• In its VulnBench research, LLM security reviews reported a finding that disappeared on the next run 49.7% of the time

Snyk's answer is to fix the backlog at machine speed. Its Evo agents generate fixes for new code and old, aiming for "backlog zero." Snyk is also right that AI can't check its own work. As its CTO puts it, "A model grading its own homework is not a security program."

We agree with the diagnosis. The prescription is where we differ. Three gaps remain:

1. Fixing everything isn't the same as fixing what matters. At eight new vulnerabilities for every one fixed, fixing faster still chases a growing pile. Snyk's offensive testing skips the bugs its scanners already found and goes after architectural flaws, so those scanner findings are fixed, not proven. A generated fix for a flaw no attacker could reach is still a change to review, test and ship.
2. Reasoning isn't repeatable. Snyk's AI pentesting is reasoning-driven, and its own VulnBench shows how often model-based security reviews change their answer between runs. A result you can put in front of a board has to come back the same every time.
3. It starts from the code you connect. Snyk's platform begins with repositories and projects. The applications most likely to hurt you are often the ones nobody connected: shadow apps, third-party services and code you never receive.

How apisec works

apisec is Application Exploit Validation: see every way in, prove what an attacker can use, confirm the fix. It has three parts.

apisec Surface: discover every application. Surface builds the application inventory from the systems that already know about your applications: SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure. The result is a global view of every enterprise application, what each one is made of, its libraries with known vulnerabilities and whether the vulnerable code is reachable, including shadow and undocumented applications.

apisec App Model: a graph of how each application operates. The App Model is a graph representation of how the application actually works: its routes, identities, authentication, authorization, data flows, dependencies, agents and MCP servers, and how they connect. Attackers reason about an application as a graph of paths to data. The App Model gives defenders the same view.

apisec Exploit Testing: compromise the application before an attacker does. Exploit Testing uses the graph to generate an inventory of application security exploits, then runs them against the live application to try to compromise it across six layers: business logic, data access, roles and permissions, the application container, infrastructure and security controls. Each exploit is recorded as confirmed, cleared, or blocked on a missing prerequisite, with replayable evidence. After a fix ships, the same exploit reruns and flips from confirmed to cleared.

What apisec delivers

• A SAST report on first-party code
• An SCA report on open source and third-party dependencies
• Most important: actionable exploits. Each one is proven against the running application, comes with evidence and the data it exposed, and goes to the top of the fix queue ahead of everything else.

Models help generate exploits and explanations. A deterministic harness decides what's real, so the same application gives the same answer every run.

apisec tests with or without source code

Most of what runs in a modern application isn't code your team wrote, and much of it is code you never see. Cloud frameworks, managed services, API gateways and platforms, vendor SDKs and compiled third-party components all run inside your application, and you never receive their source.

SAST and SCA depend on having the code or the manifest:

• SAST analyzes the code you supply. Code you never receive, such as the cloud framework or managed service your application runs on, is outside its view.
• SCA matches declared open source packages to published CVEs. It can't show how a library behaves inside your application, can't see flaws nobody has published yet, and can't see third-party code that isn't in a manifest.

apisec doesn't need the source. Exploit Testing works against the running application, so it tests the whole stack the way an attacker meets it: your code, open source libraries, cloud frameworks and third-party components together. If a dependency you can't see opens a path to your data, apisec proves it. When source code is available, apisec uses it to enrich the App Model and to produce the SAST and SCA reports. When it isn't, testing still runs.

apisec vs Snyk, capability by capability

Application discovery

Snyk: Works from the repositories, projects and targets you connect, and Evo AI-SPM inventories AI usage.

apisec: Surface builds the application inventory from SAST, SCA, API gateways, API platforms and cloud infrastructure, including internal, shadow and undocumented applications and the AI and MCP systems inside them.

Open source and dependency risk

Snyk: Snyk Open Source finds vulnerable packages with reachability analysis, and Evo Dependency Firewall blocks malicious packages at install.

apisec: Delivers an SCA report covering each application's libraries with known vulnerabilities and whether the vulnerable code is reachable. Exploit Testing then proves whether the weakness can be exploited through the application.

Third-party and cloud framework code

Snyk: Code analysis covers the code and declared packages you supply. Code that runs in cloud frameworks and managed services, which you never receive, is outside its view.

apisec: Tests the running application with or without source code, so third-party and cloud framework code is tested the way an attacker meets it, alongside your own.

Code flaws

Snyk: Snyk Code finds possible flaws, and the Evo Code Scanning Agent adds AI reasoning for access control and logic flaws in code.

apisec: Delivers a SAST report on first-party code, then tests whether each code-level risk can be exploited in the running application. Proven exploits go to the top of the fix queue; what can't be exploited is cleared with evidence.

Runtime testing

Snyk: DAST checks meaningful changes to the running app, and AI pentesting runs deeper, reasoning-driven assessments when you schedule them, such as before a release or an audit.

apisec: Every exploit in the inventory runs against the live application continuously, generated from the App Model's graph of that specific application, and the deterministic harness gives the same answer every run.

Business logic and authorization

Snyk: AI pentesting targets BOLA, privilege escalation, authentication bypass and cross-tenant leakage.

apisec: Tests object-level authorization, tenant isolation and the full roles-and-permissions matrix with real identities, on every run, not only in scheduled assessments.

False positives and triage

Snyk: Reduces noise with reachability, exploitability and breakability analysis, then generates fixes for what remains.

apisec: Removes false positives at the source. Only exploits that succeed are confirmed, ranked by the data they exposed.

Fix verification

Snyk: Remediation Agent generates fixes and queues risky ones for approval; offensive testing checks that fixes hold.

apisec: The same exploit reruns after the fix. Confirmed flips to cleared, giving a measurable record of the backlog closing.

AI applications and MCP

Snyk: Agent red teaming tests prompt injection and data exfiltration, and Evo AI-SPM governs AI usage.

apisec: Surface Code AI maps MCP servers, agents, LLM providers and call sites, and the App Model includes them so they're tested as part of the application.

What this means for your program

If your Snyk backlog keeps growing, the answer isn't fixing faster. It's proof. Five steps to move from findings to exploits:

1. Count what's proven. Take your last 100 Snyk findings, and the fixes generated for them. How many has anyone shown an attacker can use in the running application? That gap is what your team is paying to triage, review and ship.
2. Map what you actually run. Use apisec Surface to inventory every application, including the ones never connected to a repository scan.
3. Validate your highest-risk applications first. Point apisec Exploit Testing at the applications with the most sensitive data and the longest queues.
4. Send developers only confirmed exploits. Each comes with evidence and the data it exposed. Everything that can't be exploited is cleared.
5. Report exploits cleared, not findings closed. Rerun after every fix. The board sees how much of the footprint an attacker could use, and how fast that number is falling.

apisec vs Snyk: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between apisec and Snyk?

Snyk finds possible flaws in code, dependencies, containers and infrastructure as code, then uses AI agents to fix the backlog, with AI pentesting for deeper runtime assessments. apisec proves which weaknesses an attacker can actually exploit by running attacks against the live application, clears the rest with evidence, and reruns the attack to confirm every fix.

Is apisec an alternative to Snyk?

Yes. apisec is built as the successor to code-only testing. It delivers a SAST report and an SCA report and, more importantly, actionable exploits proven against the running application that go straight to the top of the fix queue. Teams use it to replace a growing findings backlog with a short list of confirmed exploits.

Snyk also does AI pentesting. How is apisec different?

Snyk AI pentesting uses reasoning-driven AI for deeper assessments you schedule, and it skips the bugs Snyk scanners already found. apisec runs its full exploit inventory continuously with a deterministic harness, so the same application gives the same answer every run, and it proves or clears your existing SAST and SCA findings too.

Why prove findings instead of fixing them all?

Snyk aims for backlog zero by generating fixes at machine speed. apisec first proves which findings an attacker can actually use, so engineers fix confirmed exploits and the rest are cleared with evidence. Fewer changes to review, test and ship, and every fix is confirmed by rerunning the same exploit.

Does apisec need access to source code?

No. apisec tests the running application with or without source code. That matters for third-party code you never see, such as cloud frameworks, managed services and vendor components, and for how open source libraries behave inside your application. SAST needs the code and SCA matches declared packages to known CVEs; apisec tests what actually runs.

See what an attacker can use in your application

Pick the application where your Snyk queue is longest and test it free, with no credit card. apisec shows which risks an attacker can actually exploit, which ones clear, and the evidence for each.

Sign up free to see what an attacker could reach in one of your own applications.