Konvu vs Aikido: One Platform or the Scanners You Already Run (2026)

Quick verdict: Pick Konvu if you keep Snyk, Checkmarx, Wiz or Black Duck and their backlog outgrows your team, and pick Aikido if you are a small team starting from zero that wants one platform for code, cloud and runtime. Konvu works on any scanner's findings, reproduces the exploit against its own copy of your app, and ships the fix.

Aikido and Konvu make opposite bets. Aikido replaces your scanners with one platform: a free plan, public per-user prices, and coverage from code to cloud to runtime. Its reachability docs list no supported languages, and every example is JavaScript (examples).

Both products make exploitability claims. Aikido's CVE Exploitability Analysis agent "decides whether the finding is truly exploitable in your environment" (Aikido docs). Konvu returns a verdict on each finding with the evidence behind it, and proves the exploitable ones by running the exploit (Konvu product). The difference is where the findings come from. Aikido's agents work on findings inside Aikido. Konvu works on findings from the scanners you already pay for.

Konvu has no native Aikido connector. Aikido findings come in as a CSV, JSON or SARIF upload, or through Konvu's API or MCP server on Enterprise, covered below. Aikido's docs do not describe importing findings from Snyk, Checkmarx, Semgrep or Wiz (checked Oct 13, 2026). Most teams pick one approach. This page covers which one fits, and how to run both.

The question each one answers

Aikido answers this one: what single platform should secure our code, cloud and running apps? Its homepage headline is "Secure everything devs build, ship and run", and its FAQ says "Aikido combines features from lots of different platforms in one" (aikido.dev). Its /code page has a "Replaces" list for each module: Snyk and GitHub Advanced Security for SCA; Veracode, Semgrep and Checkmarx for SAST; SonarQube for code quality; GitGuardian and Gitleaks for secrets (aikido.dev/code).

Konvu answers a narrower one: of the findings your scanners already produced, which can an attacker use in this deployment, and what is the evidence? Konvu is not a scanner. It reads findings from Snyk, Checkmarx, Black Duck, Wiz and 20+ other tools (integrations), checks each against your code and environment, returns a verdict, and automates the remediation for the exploitable ones.

A team with no scanners has to answer Aikido's question first. A team with three scanners and a backlog nobody can work through has already answered it and is stuck on Konvu's.

Side by side

Every Aikido cell links to Aikido's own page.

How Aikido decides a finding

Reachability first. Aikido's reachability analysis is about "identifying whether a vulnerability is actually exploitable in the context of your application" (Aikido docs). For dependencies, the question is "Does the project ever call into the vulnerable symbol?" A contextual layer adds "Prod vs dev deps, dead code, build-only tooling." At function level, the docs ask "Can untrusted input flow into a dangerous sink?" If no such path exists "under the current code and configuration", the finding is treated as non-reachable. The engine is a "conservative under-approximation": when it cannot be sure, it keeps the issue as is or lowers its severity instead of suppressing it.

SAST AutoTriage. "Before AutoTriage uses an LLM to look at your code, Aikido's reachability engine filters out false positives." Then "For the majority of SAST issues, Aikido performs triage based on Aikido-defined rules", and "For some more complex cases, Aikido uses reasoning models to interpret more nuanced control and data flows." Remaining findings get Aikido's 0 to 100 severity score, adjusted up or down from the code context (Aikido docs).

CVE Exploitability Analysis. For repositories, "The Agent reads how the vulnerable package is used in your code." For containers, it uses "image context such as the Dockerfile, base image, and distro, plus how the container is running." With Fully Automated, the agent applies its action right away. With Human Approval, it proposes the action and waits for you. Each run records "the issues analyzed, with each CVE's action taken and the agent's reasoning" (Aikido docs).

Aikido's docs do not describe a fixed list of conditions the CVE agent checks, with a result for each one (checked Oct 13, 2026). A gap in the docs is not a missing feature, so ask for sample output on your own repositories during an evaluation.

On noise, Aikido's homepage says "99% fewer false positives" and its FAQ says it can "reduce noise by 95%" (aikido.dev). Both are vendor-reported, and Aikido does not publish the method or baseline behind them.

How Konvu decides a finding

Konvu treats reachability as the entry point to exploitability analysis. A reachable function can still be safe if the input that reaches it is validated or the configuration the exploit needs is off. We wrote that argument up in reachability vs exploitability.

For each dependency CVE, Konvu checks four preconditions, and all four must hold. In the docs' words: "If any condition is false, the vulnerability doesn't apply to you" (reading an assessment).

1. Dependency installed. "Is the vulnerable dependency actually present in your codebase?" Konvu checks the installed version against its own dependency graph (dependency findings).
2. Environment. "Does your application run in an environment where the vulnerability applies?" This covers OS, runtime version and platform.
3. Code reachability. "Is the vulnerable code reachable from your application?" It is met when the vulnerable function is "imported, referenced, or reachable through your call graph."
4. Attacker controllability. "Can an attacker actually reach and exploit the vulnerable code?" Konvu checks whether user-controlled input reaches the vulnerable function, whether dangerous configuration options are enabled, whether validation or sanitization blocks the exploit, and whether a safe API variant is used.

Each precondition comes back met, not met or inconclusive, with "the specific code snippets, file paths, or reasoning that support the determination." The checklist for each CVE comes from a vulnerability database Konvu enriches from OSV, GHSA and NVD, including the vulnerable method signatures (vulnerability enrichment).

The verdict is Exploitable, False Positive, Needs input or Inconclusive. Needs input means Konvu has a question whose answer could change the result, such as whether a service is internet-facing (answering Konvu's questions). Konvu keeps every assessment attempt, each with the evidence it had at the time (how assessments work).

Proof by reproduction. Konvu also attacks the finding. It builds and deploys its own copy of your application in an isolated lab, runs the exploit from a separate host, and records the requests, the responses and the observed impact. A reproduced finding carries that proof. When the attack disproves the finding, its verdict changes to False Positive, with the evidence. If the lab cannot build what the exploit needs, Konvu records why, and the verdict from the checklist stands (How reproduction works). Konvu then ships the fix, a draft PR that runs your tests or a plan for your coding agent, and re-runs the same exploit against the fix branch to confirm it no longer fires.

The process is the same whichever scanner produced the finding. Konvu is in production at Fortune 500 and Nasdaq-listed companies. In one Global Fortune 500 customer's Black Duck SCA backlog, 96% of findings came back false positive and 4% exploitable (case study). That is one customer's backlog, not a benchmark.

Where Aikido is stronger

• Breadth. One vendor covers code scanning, cloud posture (CSPM), container images, DAST, AI pentesting, runtime protection and device protection (aikido.dev). Konvu covers none of the detection side.
• Starting from zero. The free Developer plan includes 2 users, 10 repos and 10 AI AutoFixes a month. Paid prices are public, and startups with under 1.5M in funding and fewer than 10 team members can get up to 30% off (pricing). A small team can start scanning and budget without a sales call.
• Runtime blocking. Zen "detects threats as your application runs and stops attacks like zero-days in real-time", for Node.js, Python, PHP, Java, .NET, Ruby and Go (Zen).
• Patches without upgrades. Aikido Libraries "backports CVE fixes to the exact version pinned in your lockfile" (Libraries).
• FedRAMP. Aikido's Enterprise plan lists "FedRAMP moderate" (pricing). Its FedRAMP page says "As of October 2026 Aikido is FedRAMP Moderate Authorized on the Knox Systems ATO in the FedRAMP Marketplace", through Aikido for Government, "the separate government edition" (FedRAMP).
• Review volume. Aikido holds 4.7 from 84 ratings on Gartner Peer Insights.

Konvu's limits

• Konvu is not a scanner. With no scanners in place, Konvu has nothing to assess. Buy detection first.
• No native Aikido connector. Aikido findings come in as a file upload, or through Konvu's API or MCP on Enterprise, and Konvu does not write verdicts back to Aikido.
• Write-back depends on the scanner. Approved dismissals go back to Snyk, Semgrep, Dependabot, GitLab and ArmorCode. For other scanners, the finding links to the scanner's dashboard and your team dismisses there (dismissing false positives, dependency findings). On Enterprise, Konvu also opens Jira tickets.
• No published accuracy benchmark. Konvu shows the evidence for each verdict, and the exploit run for each reproduced finding, but has not published an accuracy or false-negative rate. Run a pilot on your own findings.
• Price floor. Business starts at $2,000 a month, more than Aikido's Advanced plan at 10 users.

Choosing one, or running both

Pick Konvu if you already run Snyk, Checkmarx, Wiz or Black Duck and have a backlog your team cannot work through. Konvu decides on each finding with evidence, proves the exploitable ones and fixes them. Replacing those scanners means moving CI gates, policies and past triage decisions. Aikido publishes migration guides for this, and its SonarQube guide asks you to review accepted-risk decisions and "Recreate the decisions you still agree with in Aikido" (Aikido docs). Konvu also fits when you run more than one scanner and want one evidence format across all of their findings.

Pick Aikido if you are a team of about 10 developers with no scanners, or with one you would happily replace. You get detection across code, cloud and runtime from one vendor, a free plan to start, and prices you can read without a call. Konvu needs scanner findings you do not have yet.

The hard case is a team that wants Aikido's breadth and already carries a large backlog in another scanner. Aikido's CVE agent works on findings inside Aikido, so that backlog is analyzed after you migrate and Aikido rescans. Konvu works on it in place and attacks each finding to prove it, but does not cover cloud posture or runtime protection.

Running both fits a team that keeps Aikido for detection and wants Konvu's verdict, evidence and exploit proof on its findings. There is no native connector. Findings come in as a file upload, or through Konvu's API or MCP server on Enterprise:

1. Export from Aikido. Aikido's public API returns all issues as JSON or CSV. Open-source issues carry the CVE ID, package name and installed version, plus the affected file and repository (Aikido API).
2. Send dependency findings to Konvu. The findings API (POST /sca_findings), konvu finding submit in the CLI, or Konvu's MCP server takes each finding's CVE or GHSA ID, manifest path and package, up to 1,000 findings per request. It accepts SCA findings only. Konvu assesses them once the repository is connected, with the same four preconditions as findings from a connected scanner (bring in findings).
3. Upload other findings as a report. Konvu accepts scanner exports from tools it has no integration for as CSV, JSON or SARIF, through the dashboard, the CLI or the API (external reports). It splits an export into one report per fixable finding, then triages, deduplicates and reproduces each one. Each confirmed report gets a remediation plan for your coding agent (vulnerability reports).

Your script or agent decides what to send and when. Findings you stop sending stay open in Konvu until you send them as fixed or dismissed. Konvu's verdicts reach your team in Slack or email, as Jira tickets on Enterprise, and are forwarded to ArmorCode and Wiz (data forwarding). Your team closes the issue in Aikido. On Business, reports upload through the dashboard. API, CLI and MCP access are on Konvu's Enterprise plan (pricing).

Pricing models

Aikido charges per user for a security platform, plus credits for AI features. Konvu charges per confident verdict on findings you already have.

Aikido's pricing page picks a currency from your browser's time zone. In a US time zone it shows the dollar figures above (checked Oct 13, 2026). In most European time zones the same script shows euros, €300, €600 and €900 at 10 users. Check Aikido's pricing page before you budget.

Aikido's CVE analysis runs each night and can also be started on demand (Aikido docs). Extra credits cost $1 each, bought at least 500 at a time, and do not expire (Aikido docs). Above 400 confident verdicts a month, Konvu either caps the plan or bills the overage, your choice (Konvu pricing).

Sources checked

All sources checked on October 13, 2026.

• Aikido: Homepage, Aikido Code, Pricing, FedRAMP, CVE Exploitability Analysis, Wallet and credits, SAST AutoTriage, Reachability analysis intro, Reachability engine examples, Container reachability analysis, Aikido CI API, AutoFix overview, AutoShip overview, SonarQube migration guide, Export issues API, Aikido Libraries, Zen, AI pentesting
• Third parties: Gartner Peer Insights
• Konvu: Product, SAST triage, Pricing, Integrations, Automate remediation, Security, Enterprise software case study, What is Konvu, Reading an assessment, How assessments work, Answering Konvu's questions, Dependency findings, Vulnerability enrichment, Vulnerability reports, Threat profiles, Cloud connection, Bring in findings, External reports, Fix pull requests, Dismissing false positives, Data forwarding, Reproducing scanner findings

Related comparisons

• Aikido Security vs Snyk: Aikido's engines, tier gating and pricing against Snyk's, for teams choosing between two platforms.
• SCA vs SAST: What each scan type finds and misses, and which to deploy first if you are starting from zero.
• Checkmarx vs Black Duck: Two of the scanners Konvu reads findings from, compared on SAST depth, FedRAMP and pricing.