Aikido Security vs Snyk: A Deep Technical Comparison (2026)

Quick verdict: Snyk sells closed engines, CNA-issued advisories and a FedRAMP-authorized instance, and gates SSO, custom rules, reporting and API access at Ignite or Enterprise. Aikido runs customized open-source engines under its own triage and AI layer, prices flat from $350/month at 10 seats, and ships most controls lower down. Federal buyers and teams needing custom roles pick Snyk; teams buying broad coverage per dollar pick Aikido. Neither publishes a measured false-positive rate.

Aikido Security and Snyk both sell SCA, SAST, secrets, IaC and container scanning from a single platform. They got there from opposite directions. Snyk built closed engines and a curated vulnerability database starting in 2015. Aikido assembled customized open-source engines under its own triage layer starting in 2022.

That difference decides what you can audit, what you pay, and which plan gates the control your security review will ask about.

One warning before anything else, because most published comparisons of these two get it wrong. No independent test has ever measured both tools. Every false-positive percentage either vendor publishes lacks a stated denominator and a stated method. This page does not print one, and you should distrust any page that does.

This comparison draws on both vendors' current documentation and pricing pages, the GSA FedRAMP Marketplace dataset, AWS Marketplace contract prices, US federal award records, two peer-reviewed benchmarks, Gartner Peer Insights, and dated first-hand practitioner accounts. Where a figure could not be sourced, it is marked as missing rather than estimated. Neither vendor's own comparison pages were used as a source, in either direction.

What Aikido Security and Snyk actually are

Snyk

Snyk launched in 2015 as a developer-first SCA tool for open-source dependencies. It now sells Snyk Open Source (SCA), Snyk Code (SAST), Snyk Container, Snyk IaC, Snyk Secrets, and Snyk API & Web (DAST, from its November 2024 Probely acquisition). Snyk Essentials is the ASPM layer, previously called Snyk AppRisk. Above the products sits Evo, an agentic line launched 22 October 2025.

Plan tiers as of August 2026 are Free, Team, Ignite and Enterprise. If you read older practitioner posts, note that "Business" is gone. Ignite is the current mid-tier, aimed at organizations under 50 developers.

Snyk is a CVE Numbering Authority, appearing in the CVE Program's participant list committed 4 August 2026. Its security team has disclosed 3,506 vulnerabilities. That is a real asset and the clearest thing Snyk has that Aikido does not.

Corporate context, because it came up in procurement threads: Peter McKay announced his departure in February 2026 and left in April. CFO Ken MacAskill is interim CEO. Snyk cut roughly 90 roles on 24 June 2026, its fourth reduction. A widely shared claim that Snyk laid off 30% of staff is wrong; the sourced figure is about 6% of roughly 1,500 people.

Aikido Security

Aikido was founded in 2022 in Ghent, Belgium by Willem Delbare, Roeland Delrue and Felix Garriau. It raised a $60M Series B at a $1B valuation on 14 January 2026, led by DST Global.

The platform splits into four suites. Aikido Code covers SAST, secrets, malware, IaC, code quality, SCA, license risk and container images. Aikido Cloud covers cloud misconfiguration and VM scanning. Aikido Attack covers AI pentesting, authenticated DAST and API fuzzing. Aikido Protect covers runtime, device and bot protection. Plans are Developer (free), Basic, Pro, Advanced and Enterprise.

Aikido also maintains real open source. It co-founded Opengrep, a fork of Semgrep CE 1.100.0 created after Semgrep moved its rules to a proprietary license in December 2024. It publishes Zen (in-app firewall SDKs for seven languages), Safe Chain (blocks malicious and hallucinated packages at install time) and Betterleaks, led by the creator of Gitleaks, who joined in March 2026.

Worth knowing before you treat Opengrep as an Aikido differentiator: it is governed by a consortium that includes Endor Labs, Orca Security, Amplify and Kodem. Those vendors ship it too.

The real difference

Not "all-in-one versus best-of-breed." Both sell nine or ten product areas. The difference is auditability against control.

Aikido documents which open-source engines sit under three of its scanners, so you can read the upstream code and inherit upstream language support quickly. Snyk's SAST, SCA, container and secrets engines are closed, which means you cannot audit them, and also means Snyk Code can run entirely inside your network as a local engine. Neither posture is better. They fail differently.

Detection engines: what is actually under each product

This is the least covered part of this comparison and the most useful. Aikido names its base engines in its own docs. Snyk does not publish engine provenance at all, so the Snyk column below comes from its GitHub organization, its Apache-2.0 licensed components and its acquisition record.

For the four areas Aikido declines to document, its GitHub organization maintains actively pushed forks of Anchore Grype, Aqua Trivy, Turbot Steampipe plugins, Kubescape's Rego library and mitmproxy. That is strong circumstantial evidence, not a vendor statement, so the honest phrasing is that Aikido maintains a current fork of those engines rather than that its scanner is one.

Two things follow. Aikido's docs are more forthcoming than Snyk's about SAST, secrets and IaC, and less forthcoming about containers, cloud and DAST. And Snyk publishes no engine provenance anywhere, which is a fair thing to hold against a tool you are asked to trust with your source code.

What Aikido's own layer does

The wrapper criticism does not survive contact with the evidence. Aikido's layer over Opengrep does four documented things: it strips non-security rules, re-ranks severity using repository sensitivity and whether a file ships to production, propagates taint across files, and runs an LLM triage pass.

The cross-file part is the load-bearing one. In a November 2025 thread, a critic said Opengrep does intrafile but not interfile analysis, the Opengrep maintainer confirmed interfile taint was still in progress with a first version due in early 2026, and Aikido stated its call-tree layer is not Opengrep. Aikido publishes cross-file taint for 12 of its 19 SAST languages. The capability sits in Aikido's code.

Aikido's CEO also concedes in public that the default engine misses business-logic issues and cross-tenant data leaks. Both statements are true and both belong here.

Where scanning runs, and what leaves your network

A procurement question that most comparisons answer vaguely.

Aikido's IDE plugin scans locally and states that source code is never uploaded to Aikido servers. Snyk's VS Code extension picks up files and uploads them for analysis. For teams whose security review blocks on code egress, that is the difference between a short conversation and a long one.

Both offer an on-premise story and neither offers what that phrase usually implies. Snyk Code Local Engine runs the analyzer in your Kubernetes cluster, but the docs are explicit: only the scan is local, and results upload to Snyk. It needs 55 GB RAM and 14 cores per node minimum, and outbound WebSockets to *.snyk.io. Aikido's Local Scanner works the same way and requires the Pro plan plus a manual activation by Aikido.

Neither vendor documents an air-gapped deployment. Snyk's own marketing page answers the question "Does Snyk provide an on-premise deployment option?" with "No," while its documentation describes the local engine in full. That page also still names the superseded "Business" plan.

One more Snyk detail that matters and is easy to miss. Snyk's SCM-only SCA is, per its own documentation, partial and approximate, while its CLI path uses real resolvers. Connect GitHub and nothing else and you silently get the weaker mode.

Coverage and what each tier gates

Both cover SCA, SAST, secrets, IaC, containers, malware, cloud posture, DAST, license compliance and SBOM. The interesting part is the tier.

Aikido ships nearly everything at Developer, then caps scale hard: 2 users, 10 repositories, rescans every three days. Snyk ships less per capability at Free but does not cap seats. Both statements are true and picking one to quote is how comparisons mislead.

Where the gating diverges sharply:

Two ecosystem findings are worth more than the rest of the matrix. Snyk Code support for Rust is Early Access and Enterprise-only, and Snyk SCA for Rust is limited to snyk sbom test, with snyk test and snyk monitor unavailable. Aikido covers Rust at Developer with cross-file taint. Snyk gates COBOL and Groovy to Enterprise too. If your stack includes any of those, the tier question stops being academic.

Aikido lists Bun, Deno and pdm lockfiles; Snyk's docs do not mention them. Snyk names 14 supported container distributions; Aikido names none.

The tier trap in Snyk's own documentation

Snyk's pricing page and its documentation gate different layers of the same capability, and the docs are stricter every time.

The docs strings are direct: "SSO is available only for Enterprise plans," "Managing user roles is available only with Enterprise plans," "Snyk License Compliance Management is available only with Enterprise plans." The likeliest reading is self-serve flow versus managed SAML, and basic roles versus custom roles. It is not deception, the two pages describe different things. But scope Snyk from the pricing page alone and you will mis-scope three procurement-relevant controls.

Aikido has the mirror-image problem on a smaller scale. Its pricing table puts SSO and Audit Log at Advanced, its docs say SAML is available on any paying plan. Get either vendor's answer in writing.

Pricing

Aikido

List price, monthly, at the default 10 seats: Basic $350, Pro $700, Advanced $1,050. Annual billing takes 10% off, which is exactly what the AWS Marketplace 12-month contracts charge ($3,780, $7,560, $11,340). Pricing is linear in blocks of 10 seats.

A caution if you check this yourself. The pricing page renders those numbers with JavaScript, and the static HTML holds stale placeholders of 300 and 600 that never display. Several published comparisons quote them.

Aikido does not publish a definition of a billable user anywhere. Its pricing page uses "users" and "developers" interchangeably, its FAQ does not address it, and the subscription agreement does not render publicly. The only public statement is a Reddit comment from a self-identified Aikido employee in June 2026 saying it counts contributing developers. That is not a contractual definition and you should not budget against it.

Snyk

Free at $0, Team from $25 per contributing developer per month, Ignite from $1,260 per contributing developer per year ($105/month), Enterprise on quote.

Snyk does define its unit, precisely: "developers who have made a commit to a private repo monitored by Snyk in the last 90 days. We do not count contributions to public (open source) repos." Counts appear on a Usage page. Snyk publishing this and Aikido not is the cleanest asymmetry in the comparison, and it runs in Snyk's favor.

The catch is the footnote. Snyk's products are purchased individually and plan price varies per product, so $25 per developer is per product, not for the platform. Buy four products and multiply. Stepping from Team to Ignite is 4.2x per developer, and it triggers at the 11th developer.

Both vendors now sell credits

Aikido has charged $1 per credit for pentests, DSPM, Deep Review, CVE Exploitability Analysis and Libraries for a while, with a 500-credit minimum purchase and a standard pentest at 4,000 credits. Complimentary monthly credits land only on Pro (100) and Advanced (200), and stop arriving if you do not spend them.

Snyk published a Credit-Based Billing Model effective 4 August 2026: Snyk Secrets at 0.66 credits per Active Contributor per day, Snyk API & Web at 3.0 credits per Provisioned Target per day, overage invoiced in arrears rather than blocked. The per-credit price is set in your Order and published nowhere.

Read Snyk's definition of Active Contributor before signing. It "may be human or non-human," explicitly including third-party bots, automated systems and service accounts. One developer with two non-reducible email addresses counts twice. A repository monitored for part of a day consumes a full day of credits.

Anyone telling you only one of these vendors sells consumption pricing is working from stale information.

What teams actually pay

Mostly unknown, and that is the honest answer.

The one primary record is a US federal award: a Small Business Administration order for "SNYK RENEWAL 50 USERS" at $24,872.28, which is $497.45 per user per year, well under list. Consecutive SBA orders moved 1.9% down, not up. Procurement aggregators report Snyk figures with stated sample sizes (Vendr n=277, February 2026; SpendHound n=49 and n=45), and those samples disagree with each other.

For Aikido there is no paid-price figure with a sample size and a date anywhere. Aikido has zero US federal award records and zero EU tender records. Do not let anyone place an Aikido contract-value number beside a Snyk one; the second number does not exist.

Bill shock is worth addressing because it is asserted constantly. Snyk's billing unit is genuinely hard to forecast, and a practitioner described it as making spend "darn difficult to manage." But across Hacker News, r/devsecops, r/cybersecurity, r/Snyk and Gartner reviews, there is no dated first-hand account of a renewal increase. The often-quoted 5 to 10% escalator traces only to aggregators with no methodology. The two sourced signals point in opposite directions.

Noise, prioritization and fixes

Reachability, and what it actually tells you

Snyk offers reachability for Java, JavaScript, TypeScript and Python at GA with C# in Early Access, though its own Risk Score page contradicts that and says Java and JavaScript only. It must be switched on. Aikido applies a reachability filter by default and describes its approach as a conservative under-approximation, but never enumerates language coverage.

Both concede the limit in their own documentation. Snyk: "just because there is no evidence of this does not mean that the element cannot be reached." Aikido calls its own result an under-approximation.

That concession is the important line on this page. Reachability answers whether a function is called. It does not answer whether an attacker can actually reach it in your deployment, with your configuration, behind whatever controls you already run. Those are different questions, and treating them as the same one is the most common reason a backlog stays full. The distinction deserves more room than it gets here, so we wrote it up separately in reachability vs exploitability. Answering the second question is what Konvu does.

False positives: nobody has measured this

Aikido markets a 95% noise cut and 85% fewer false positives. Snyk markets 80%-accurate fixes and a 0.08% DAST false-positive rate. Not one of those four figures comes with a denominator or a published method. Treat all four as marketing.

No independent test covers both tools. That is not an oversight in our research, it is the state of the field, and it is more useful to say plainly than to substitute a proxy.

What exists:

• RealVuln (arXiv 2604.13764, April 2026), Python only, 26 deliberately vulnerable repositories: Snyk Code precision 0.282, recall 0.167, F1 21.0, in the bottom tier alongside Semgrep. The paper's top scorer is a vendor whose site it links to, so read the ranking as interested.
• arXiv 2508.04448 (August 2025), C# only, 63 vulnerabilities: Snyk Code precision 0.686, recall 0.523, the best static tool tested.
• Snyk VulnBench JS (June 2026), Snyk's own, measuring repeatability rather than accuracy, and admirably explicit that "Snyk Code defines the reference set" so its 100% is not an accuracy claim.
• For Aikido: one benchmark, published by Corgea, a direct competitor, n=47 on a deliberately vulnerable repository.

Different languages, different datasets, different adjudicators, interested parties on both sides. Comparing across them is invalid, and anyone who does it is manufacturing a conclusion. There is no OWASP Benchmark scorecard for either tool; a circulating "Snyk Code 97.18%" figure traces to a competitor's blog.

Checkable facts beat unmeasurable ones. Snyk's secrets scanner does not scan git history and does not verify whether a credential is still live. Aikido's does both, at the free tier. Snyk's docs also note its secrets scanner "will not detect any fake or AI generated secrets."

Fixes

Both ship automated dependency-upgrade PRs and AI-generated fixes for SAST findings. Snyk documents a re-scan gate before proposing a fix; Aikido does not document an equivalent validation step.

No merge rate or acceptance rate is published by either vendor, and none appears in independent sources. If a vendor quotes you one, ask for the denominator.

Developer workflow

PR checks are scoped differently, and it will surprise you

Snyk PR Checks are not diff-scoped. From Snyk's documentation: they are "triggered by a change in your code and find issues across the entire repository. Thus, a PR check finds issues in your code as well as other issues introduced since the last Snyk scan." The default fails only when the new branch has more issues, but Open Source gating exposes an explicit "Fail if the repo has any issues" option.

The practical consequence: a newly disclosed CVE in a dependency nobody touched can flip a Snyk PR check to failed with no relevant code change in the pull request.

Aikido scans the branch diff instead, reports newly introduced issues and which existing issues the PR fixes, and does not fail the gate on pre-existing findings in untouched code.

Which behavior you want depends on whether you are enforcing a policy or unblocking a developer. Neither is wrong. But teams pick one of these tools without knowing this differs, then spend a quarter fighting the CI gate.

AI coding agents

The clearest capability gap in either direction, and it favors Snyk.

Snyk ships Agent Supply Chain Security at GA, which inventories MCP servers and agent skills across a developer fleet and scores them 0 to 1,000 including prompt-injection indicators. Trusted Output Assurance is GA. It exposes 12 MCP tools, and treats MCP-server taint entry points as of July 2025. The scanner is open source as snyk/agent-scan, from the June 2025 Invariant Labs acquisition.

Aikido ships 4 MCP tools, Safe Chain to block hallucinated packages at install, a pre-commit secrets hook covering agent output, plus Code Audit and Deep Review. It documents no agent supply-chain inventory, no MCP or skill risk scoring, and no agent-runtime governance.

Two caveats keep this honest. Snyk's Agent Behavior Governance is Open Preview, capped at 10,000 hook calls per day per tenant with 7-day retention, and Snyk's own docs say it "should not be used in production." And no independent evaluation of either vendor on AI-generated code exists, so this is a breadth comparison, not an effectiveness one.

Enterprise and compliance

FedRAMP is the one genuinely decisive fact

The GSA FedRAMP Marketplace dataset, 671 products, checked 8 August 2026, contains zero Aikido records at any status. Not Authorized, not In Process, not Ready. Snyk holds FedRAMP Moderate with an agency ATO dated 7 April 2025 through Snyk for Government.

Aikido says it is targeting FedRAMP Moderate in Q3 2026 through Knox Systems' boundary. Separately, its pricing page lists "FedRAMP ATO" as an Advanced-tier feature bullet, formatted like a shipped capability. A federal buyer will notice.

If you are a US federal agency or a contractor under a FedRAMP requirement, you can buy Snyk today and you cannot buy Aikido today. Nothing else on this page is as clean a decision.

Access control

Aikido has three fixed roles, no custom roles, and no workspace-wide administration audit log; its API exposes a triage log at 50 records per page with no documented retention. Snyk has permission-level custom roles and a real admin audit log, both Enterprise-only. Neither vendor documents SCIM.

Running the other way, Aikido is ahead on compliance reporting. It ships in-product evidence pages for ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2, CIS v8.1, NIS2, NIST 800-53, PCI DSS v4.0, HIPAA, DORA, HITRUST and GDPR at Advanced, and pushes to Drata, Vanta, Thoropass and Sprinto. Snyk has no equivalent catalogue.

Both hold SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001:2022. Snyk has five hosting regions with residency gated to Enterprise and the choice irreversible. Aikido has four regions, defaults to the EU, and does not document which tier unlocks the choice. Aikido has a Middle East region; Snyk has a GovCloud region.

Where Snyk degrades at scale, in its own numbers

Snyk publishes its thresholds, which is unusual and to its credit, even though it makes the table look worse: dashboard slowdown above 2,000 users per Org, admin slowdown above 2,000 Orgs per Group with Group-level service account creation potentially failing, 10,000 Projects per Org recommended against a 25,000 hard cap. Hard limits at 4,500,000 files and 70 GB per repository. Concurrent imports default to 15 repositories, and 200-plus manifest files must be split across imports. pnpm workspace protocol is unsupported for SCM scans, Yarn v1 workspaces fail in a common layout, and Lerna is "not fully" supported.

Practitioners at several hundred developers and around a thousand repositories report two modes that documentation does not cover: silent under-scanning, described as the scanner reporting a successful scan while missing large chunks, and per-repository configuration drift requiring periodic review. Gartner reviewers report no bulk triage, only per-result modification. Suppressions marked in the dashboard have been reported still appearing in Jenkins output. Snyk's own published case study concedes a UI ceiling, and that customer open-sourced a tool called snyk-sync to work around it.

Aikido publishes no scale limit of any kind. There is no practitioner account at high repository counts, and no scan-time, onboarding-time or findings-volume figure even in Aikido's own 1,500-repository customer story.

Be careful how you read that. Absence of reported failures is not evidence of working. It means nobody has published either way, and Snyk gets penalized here partly for being more transparent.

Known weaknesses

Snyk

Pricing is the dominant complaint, and the mechanism is real: per-product multiplication, a 4.2x step at the 11th developer, and a credit unit that counts bots and service accounts. A Gartner reviewer at a $10B to $30B retailer flagged "high licensing costs for large teams" on 16 July 2026.

Beyond cost: the SAST engine is closed, so you cannot inspect why it flagged something. Custom rules are Enterprise-only and use a proprietary query language with no public registry. API access starts at Ignite, which puts bulk export behind a paid tier and is why a Snyk-to-CSV thread exists at all. Acquired products show their seams; API & Web still authenticates at plus.probely.app. The scale limits above are self-documented.

Aikido Security

No FedRAMP listing, no custom roles, no administration audit log, and no published billable-seat definition. Depth relative to specialists is asserted more often than evidenced, but Aikido's own CEO concedes the default SAST engine misses business-logic and cross-tenant issues, and the one competitor-run benchmark reported low recall. Container, cloud, DAST and malware engines are undocumented. The 10-seat floor means a four-person team still pays for ten.

One claim we tested and could not support: that Aikido's company maturity blocks enterprise deals. In every procurement thread searched, nobody reported losing a deal over Aikido's age or size. The documented loss was pricing at microservice scale, and two stalled evaluations were about support responsiveness.

A warning about Reddit sentiment on both sides

Treat comment volume about either vendor as unusable. We found five near-identical positive Aikido posts inside 18 minutes on 17 July 2026, with an unrelated user calling it out, and a self-identified Aikido employee recommending Aikido in a separate thread without disclosing the affiliation. Specific technical criticisms in those threads remain useful. Counts and sentiment do not.

What neither tool does

Findings that need an architectural change. Transitive vulnerabilities with no fixed version upstream. First-party logic flaws. Business-logic and authorization bugs that static analysis structurally cannot reach. Both vendors say some version of this in their own documentation, and both are right to.

When to pick which

Pick Snyk if you sell to the US federal government or operate under a FedRAMP requirement, if you need custom roles and a real admin audit log, if you want CNA-issued advisories and a curated database, if you are building heavily with coding agents and want MCP inventory and scoring today, or if your security review will not permit source code leaving your network for SAST.

Pick Aikido if you want the widest product coverage per dollar at small to mid scale, if your stack includes Rust, Bun, Deno or pdm, if you want auditable engines and locally-scanning IDE plugins, if compliance evidence for ISO, SOC 2, PCI or DORA is a live requirement, or if you want secrets liveness validation and diff-scoped PR gating without paying for a top tier.

Scope carefully either way if you run GitLab self-managed or Azure DevOps, if you are past a thousand repositories, or if you need SCIM, which neither documents.

Run both? Nobody in our research does, and neither vendor documents importing the other's suppression state, custom rules, policy configuration or trend history. Migration means re-adjudicating accepted risk by hand. SARIF, JSON and SBOM exports are portable; decisions are not.

Bottom line

Snyk is the more conservative purchase and the more expensive one, with a defined billing unit, a FedRAMP path, published scale limits, and a documentation set that gates more than its pricing page admits. Aikido is broader per dollar with more auditable engines and more controls low in the stack, and thinner on enterprise administration, published limits and contractual clarity.

Neither is the tool that answers the question your developers actually ask, which is whether a given finding is exploitable here.

Both platforms prioritize, and prioritize on real signals. Both ingest EPSS. Both use exploit maturity or KEV. Both ship a form of reachability, and Aikido exposes a per-finding score breakdown. Anyone telling you these tools do not prioritize has not used them.

What sits outside both scoring models is narrower and more specific: observed production execution, internet-facing exposure, compensating controls you already run, and whether a vulnerable path is reachable from an entry point an attacker actually controls across a deployed topology. Both vendors concede the static limit in their own words. Snyk: "just because there is no evidence of this does not mean that the element cannot be reached." Aikido: a "conservative under-approximation."

And each platform's triage stops at its own output. Snyk's webhook feed carries open-source and container events and no SAST events. Aikido documents no deduplication across branches, forks, repositories or monorepo sub-projects. That matters because most teams past a certain size run more than one scanner, and first-hand accounts of two-or-more-scanner stacks are routine in 2026 practitioner discussion while single-scanner accounts are rare. One engineer described the same CVE open in five places under five finding IDs, from Tenable on the host, Snyk in the dependency, Wiz on the cloud workload and DAST on the behavior, as "five separate tickets nobody fully owns," and concluded "our open-findings count is fiction." Another put it more bluntly: "You can't buy integration. The 'single pane of glass' is a fever dream."

So teams build the layer themselves. Named, dated and first-hand across 2025 and 2026: Nucleus Security for suppression that survives scan cycles, Axonius as a normalization layer, Kondukto and DefectDojo, Dependency-Track, Grafana dashboards, SARIF dumped to a datastore, custom Python against vendor APIs to apply business logic, spreadsheets, and one team's own LLM inference layer. Snyk's own reference customer open-sourced snyk-sync.

That is the part Konvu takes on. It is not a scanner and not a dashboard. It plugs into the scanners you already run, Snyk and Wiz and twenty-plus others, triages every finding, proves what is actually exploitable in your environment with evidence a developer can read, then ships the fix as a PR or a temporary patch at the WAF level. Decisions get written back into Jira, GitHub and the scanner, so nobody gets another place to check.

Pick Aikido or Snyk on the tier table, the FedRAMP question and the engines. Then decide what you are going to do with what they find.

Related comparisons

• Snyk vs Semgrep: Semgrep is the upstream of Aikido's SAST base engine, which makes this the closest available read on that engine against Snyk Code.
• Snyk vs SonarQube: SonarQube is the only product Aikido publishes a migration guide from, and the tool most often run alongside Snyk.
• SCA vs SAST: Both platforms sell both, and tier gating differs per scan type on each side, so scope your scan types before comparing prices.