Snyk answers whether it is vulnerable. Hanu answers whether it reached you.

Hanu is not a software composition analysis engine and should not be judged as one. It has no curated vulnerability database of its own, no automated upgrade pull requests, and no in-editor feedback for dependency findings. What it has is a different input: scanner output treated as one signal type among 166, joined to whatever else your estate was doing at the same time.

Where the other tool wins

On the scanner's own terms, the comparison is not close, and pretending otherwise would waste your afternoon.

• Scan depth and the database behind it. Snyk's dependency, container, infrastructure-as-code and code scanning content is deeper than anything Hanu ships. It is a scanner first; that is the entire job, and it is done well.
• The fix experience. Automated fix pull requests, safe upgrade paths and pull-request annotations are a product surface in their own right. Hanu proposes a mechanical fix where one exists and routes the rest as work; that is not the same thing and we will not describe it as if it were.
• Developer experience. In-editor feedback and IDE plugins meet developers where they already are. A check run on a pull request is a good surface; an editor is a better one, and teams that like Snyk will not like Hanu more on this axis.
• Ecosystem coverage kept current by a dedicated team. Language, package manager and advisory coverage is a maintenance burden that a scanner vendor carries full time. Matching it with a self-hosted stack is not a trade most teams should make.
• Recognition in diligence. AppSec tooling from a known vendor is simpler to explain in a customer questionnaire about how you manage dependencies, and that is a real cost avoided.

Where Hanu fits

A scanner answers a question about a package. Hanu answers a question about your environment, which needs inputs a scanner does not read.

• Scanner output is a signal, not a verdict. Findings arrive through the scan-ingest plugin interface and become typed signals - DEPENDENCY_VULNERABILITY, CONTAINER_IMAGE_VULNERABILITY, OSS_DEPENDENCY_RISK, CI_PIPELINE_FINDING - with the resource, principal, account and confidence attached. From that point they are treated exactly like every other signal on the bus.
• Reach is the missing half. A vulnerable dependency is a fact about a version. Whether it was built into an image that runs with a deploy credential, whether the release that carried it had no provenance, and whether a first-ever credential validation followed by model enumeration happened in the same week: those are joins across registry, CI, cloud and identity data, and they are what the 75 correlation rules are for.
• Deterministic scoring. The compound score is arithmetic rather than a model, so two analysts reading the same chain get the same number, and the chain carries the rule id and every contributing signal. Nothing in that path is an LLM.
• The gate, not just the report. Findings can be returned as a GitHub check run, a GitLab job, or a CircleCI or Jenkins step, so the reach question is asked on the diff while a fix is still cheap. Hygiene rules such as unpinned actions are opt-in per repository for exactly that reason.
• In your account, under ELv2. Eight services, 0 bytes of telemetry egress, source-available under the Elastic License 2.0 with a Community edition that is $0 in production. The rules that decide whether a merge is blocked are readable by the engineers it blocks.

1. 01

   A scanner reports a vulnerable dependency

   Snyk, Semgrep, Trivy or Tenable output arrives through the scan-ingest interface and becomes a typed signal on the bus, carrying the package, the version and the asset it belongs to.

2. 02

   Correlation checks the same window

   Tier-2 rules look for what else happened around that asset: a release with missing provenance, a workflow change in a repository holding credentials, an image that is unsigned, a credential used for the first time against a model API.

3. 03

   One risk, or nothing

   If a chain forms, the result is a single ranked risk with the evidence list attached. If nothing joins, the finding stays a finding - which is the correct outcome for most advisories, most weeks.

4. 04

   Feedback where the fix happens

   Code-level remediation returns to the forge as a check run, and tracked work goes to Jira or ServiceNow, so the dependency question and the reach question end in the same place.

Verdict

Keep Snyk if you are an AppSec lead, a security engineering manager or an engineering leader whose problem is the dependency backlog itself: known-vulnerable packages, the upgrade path, and developers who need to be told in their editor. That work is real and Hanu does not do it. Add Hanu if you are the CISO or the platform lead who has to answer which of those findings is actually reachable - which one was built into an image running with a deploy credential, or carried by a release nobody reviewed - and in what order they should be fixed. Replacing Snyk with Hanu would remove a capability you need; running both is the configuration this page recommends and the one the ingest plugins exist for.

What AppSec teams ask