Konvu vs Snyk: Proving Which Snyk Findings Are Exploitable (2026)

Quick verdict: Keep Snyk for detection, and add Konvu when the Snyk backlog grows faster than your team can fix it. Konvu proves which Snyk findings an attacker can use by reproducing the exploit against its own copy of your application, then ships the fix and keeps the evidence for every finding left open.

Snyk's reachability is GA only for Java, JavaScript, TypeScript and Python, through SCM integrations. C# and CLI or CI/CD scans are in Early Access, and Go, Ruby, PHP and Rust have none (Snyk docs, checked Oct 13, 2026). Konvu assesses all of them (Konvu docs). With a small backlog and cheap upgrades, follow Snyk's advice and fix it all. Konvu reads Snyk Open Source and Snyk Code findings (Snyk integration), so the choice is Snyk alone or Snyk plus Konvu.

The question each one answers

Both products answer one question, what to do with a Snyk finding nobody has fixed yet, and they answer it differently.

Snyk: can I fix this safely?

In "Exploitability Isn't the Answer. Breakability Is." (Bryan Sullivan, February 12, 2026), Snyk argues that the bottleneck is trust. Developers hesitate "because they're afraid of breaking their code." Snyk's first question for any finding:

"Can I fix this problem with minimal effort and minimal risk? If the answer is yes, do the fix."

On reachability labels:

"there's a big difference between saying 'This vulnerability absolutely, definitively cannot be reached' and 'A reachable path for this vulnerability has not been found'. The latter condition is vastly more common than the former. It's just not safe for you to assume that 'no reachable path found' means there is no reachable path, especially in today's world where attackers use AI hacking tools to find weaknesses and exploit them faster than ever."

So Snyk rates how likely each upgrade is to break your application. Breakability adds a signal: "Snyk is not abandoning Reachability or Risk Score." In Snyk's experiments, "low breakability updates were merged at four times the rate of higher risk changes," and "about one-third of all fixes fall into the low breakability category" (vendor-reported, no method published).

Breakability is the right call when the upgrade is a low-risk bump. Fixing costs less than investigating, and a merged upgrade stays fixed when your code changes later. A dismissal is only as current as the code it was checked against.

Konvu: which of these findings needs fixing?

Konvu agrees that a "no path found" label alone is weak evidence for leaving a vulnerability open. Its conclusion differs: check more conditions, show the evidence, and let a person approve each dismissal.

Reachability is the entry point, "the floor of exploitability, not the ceiling" (reachability analysis). Each verdict also checks the environment and attacker-controlled input, and lists the files and code Konvu read. A static check can miss a path, Konvu's included. So each verdict shows its evidence for a reviewer to check, and Konvu runs the exploit instead of trusting a label.

Konvu's position is that a large backlog cannot be fixed in full, so fix effort belongs on the findings an attacker can use. In one Global Fortune 500 case study on Black Duck SCA findings, Konvu assessed 96% as false positives and 4% as exploitable (case study). At a fintech SaaS company, Konvu flagged 81% of Snyk SCA and SAST findings as false positives (case study). Those are single customers' backlogs, not benchmarks.

When each approach fits

One backlog usually has findings in both columns. Running both shows how to split them.

Side by side

How Snyk decides a finding

Reachability. Snyk matches your application's call graph against code elements ranked as the vulnerability's likely root cause, using "static program analysis and various AI techniques" and expert review. It needs no build, but "Snyk must analyze your source code" (docs). REACHABLE means "A direct or indirect path was found from your application to the vulnerable code," with the call path shown. The others are NO PATH FOUND and NOT APPLICABLE. Snyk states the limits itself: reachability means "raising the chances of that vulnerability being exploited in the context of your application," and NO PATH FOUND "does not mean that the vulnerability is completely unreachable or unexploitable." In a February 2026 update, Snyk says it "increased both the precision and recall" for JavaScript, Java and Python (vendor-reported, no method published).

Exploit conditions. Snyk's vulnerable conditions page says "Exploitability depends on the context." Its Triage Assistant uses the Snyk Code engine to check those conditions in your code. It is "available only for the Java (Gradle and Maven) ecosystem when you use GitHub as the source and Snyk Code is enabled." The documented Jackson example checks the version, an enabled setting, JSON input from the user and a gadget class.

Scoring and policies. Risk Score (0 to 1,000) combines exploit maturity, EPSS and other signals with reachability and business criticality. It is in Early Access for Snyk Open Source and Snyk Container, and "is not available in the CLI" (docs). Enterprise policies, for Snyk Open Source, act on conditions "such as no exploit available."

Snyk Code. Findings come from taint flow analysis. Consistent Ignores apply an ignore across the repository, and Enterprise Snyk Code Security policies ignore by CWE, rule ID or severity. Custom sanitizers (Rule Extensions, GA July 2026) teach the engine your validation functions: "A taint flow that reaches a sink only after passing through your sanitizer is no longer reported."

How Konvu decides a finding

Konvu checks four preconditions for each dependency finding, and all four must hold (Reading an assessment).

1. Dependency installed. The vulnerable version is in your dependency tree. Konvu builds its own dependency graph and does not rely only on the scanner's direct or transitive flag (Dependencies).
2. Environment. Your OS, runtime and platform match what the vulnerability needs.
3. Code reachability. A low bar: met when "the vulnerable function is imported, referenced, or reachable through your call graph." An import or a reference is enough, so Konvu never dismisses a finding because a call graph found no path.
4. Attacker controllability. Konvu checks whether user-controlled input reaches the vulnerable function, whether dangerous configuration options are enabled, whether validation or sanitization prevents exploitation, and whether safe API variants are used.

Each precondition is marked Met, Not met or Inconclusive, with file paths, code snippets or reasoning. The result is one of four:

• Exploitable: all four are met.
• False Positive: at least one is not met, and the evidence names which.
• Needs input: some conditions are open and a question to you would settle them, such as "Is this service internet-facing?" Your answer triggers a new assessment (Answering Konvu's questions).
• Inconclusive: some conditions are open and Konvu has no question to ask. An open condition alone never produces a False Positive.

For a Snyk Code finding, Konvu traces where the flagged data comes from and what validation it passes on the way (Snyk integration). The finding page keeps the assessment history, showing how the result changed as evidence arrived (Reviewing assessments).

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).

When a finding is exploitable, Konvu automates the remediation. A dependency plan shows the target version, the API changes, the affected lines in your code, a risk summary and the diff (Remediation plans). Konvu opens the fix PR or hands the plan to your coding agent, and after the fix it re-runs the same exploit against the fix branch to confirm it no longer fires.

Where Snyk is stronger

• Detection. Snyk scans every layer in the table above with its own engines and vulnerability database.
• Developer workflow. IDE plugins, the CLI and PR checks catch new issues before merge. Konvu works on findings that already exist. Its Guardrails work earlier, keeping Claude Code and Codex on your security guidelines as they write code.
• Fixing at volume. Snyk opens fix, upgrade and backlog PRs automatically. The Remediation Agent (Early Access) "bumps dependency versions or adds overrides" and "runs the tests that exist in the application."
• Offensive testing of running apps. Continuous Offensive Security (GA August 2026) finds issues in running applications and attaches a "Proof of work" to each: "The result of running the exploit against your application" (docs). Its docs do not describe it validating Snyk Open Source or Snyk Code findings (checked Oct 13, 2026). That is what Konvu's reproduction does with the Snyk findings you already have.
• Cloud Bitbucket and Azure Repos. Snyk reachability is GA on GitHub, GitHub Enterprise, Bitbucket, GitLab and Azure Repos. Konvu connects to GitHub and GitLab, and Enterprise adds GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab self-managed, Bitbucket Data Center and Azure DevOps Server (pricing).
• FedRAMP. Snyk for Government (US) "adheres to the FedRAMP and NIST security control requirements" (docs).
• Analyst standing. Snyk was named a Leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Application Security Testing (Snyk).
• A free plan. Snyk Free costs $0 for 5 projects and 100 Snyk Code tests a month, with access to SCA, SAST, IaC and Container (plans).

Konvu's limits

• Not a scanner. Konvu does not find vulnerabilities itself. It needs findings from Snyk or another scanner (What is Konvu).
• Not every Snyk finding. Konvu does not import Snyk IaC, cloud or license findings (Snyk integration).
• No published accuracy benchmark. Verdicts can be wrong. That is why the evidence is shown and a person approves each dismissal.
• Enterprise-only pieces. API and CLI access, Jira push and self-hosted analysis require Enterprise (pricing).

Running Konvu and Snyk together

If you are looking for a tool that works with Snyk to reduce manual vulnerability triage, this is the setup. Snyk keeps scanning and blocking new issues, and Konvu decides which existing findings need a fix (Snyk integration).

What Konvu reads. Snyk Open Source findings (package, version, vulnerability, manifest) and Snyk Code findings (rule and location), plus Snyk Container findings when the container add-on is on. Konvu connects per Snyk organization through a Snyk App and OAuth, syncs daily and on demand, and reads your code through your source control, not Snyk. You choose which severities Konvu assesses, as an organization default or per repository (Assessment settings).

What goes back. Once an admin selects "Activate ignores from Konvu", dismissing an SCA finding in Konvu adds a Snyk ignore: type "not vulnerable", all paths, no expiry, with a comment naming who dismissed it and linking to the evidence. Reopening the finding in Konvu removes the ignore. A person dismisses each finding, singly or in bulk, and Konvu never ignores a Snyk issue on its own. If someone un-ignores or resolves the issue in Snyk, Konvu applies that on its next sync. On Enterprise, exploitable findings also go to Jira.

What stays in Snyk. Scanning, PR checks, severity and priority scores, and the state of Snyk Code and container findings, which someone changes in Snyk by hand.

An auditor who asks why a critical CVE is open in Snyk follows the ignore's link to the evidence.

A workflow that uses both answers

1. Snyk scans as it does today. IDE plugins, PR checks and the CLI catch new issues.
2. Merge the safe upgrades. Low-breakability upgrades go first, as Snyk advises.
3. Konvu assesses what remains and reproduces the exploits. Snyk Code findings, medium or high breakability upgrades, and findings with no fixed version.
4. Fix the exploitable ones. With Konvu's tested fix PR, a plan for your coding agent, or Snyk's fix PR. Konvu then checks that the exploit no longer fires.
5. Dismiss the rest with evidence. A person reviews each False Positive and dismisses it in Konvu. Dependency dismissals become Snyk ignores.

Pricing models

The two bill on different units.

Sources: snyk.io/plans and konvu.com/pricing. Konvu bills for confident verdicts and fix PRs that land. Inconclusive verdicts and failed fix PRs are free.

Sources checked

All sources checked on October 13, 2026.

• Snyk: Breakability blog post, Reachability analysis, Improved reachability announcement, Vulnerable conditions, Risk Score, Set up Insights, Policies, Consistent Ignores, Custom sanitizers, Pull or merge requests, Breakability risk levels, Snyk Agent Fix, Remediation Agent, Offensive Security finding details, Jira integration, Regional hosting, Snyk for Government, What's new, IDE plugins, Snyk CLI, Pull Request checks, Plans and pricing, Platform overview, Snyk Security Database, 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant
• Konvu: Product, Pricing, Snyk integration, Reachability analysis, Security, Global Fortune 500 case study, What is Konvu, Reading an assessment, Answering Konvu's questions, Reviewing assessments, Dependencies, Fix pull requests, Remediation plans, Reproducing scanner findings, Cloud connection, Assessment settings

Related comparisons

• Snyk vs Semgrep: Snyk's SCA platform against Semgrep's customizable SAST engine, and why many teams run both.
• Aikido Security vs Snyk: Two all-in-one platforms compared tier by tier, including what each one's reachability does and does not tell you.
• Snyk vs SonarQube: Snyk's security scanning next to SonarQube's quality gates, a common pairing.
• Reachability vs exploitability: The longer version of the argument on this page, with examples.