Dependency Management

Now pick what to compare OpenSSF Package Analysis against.

OpenSSF Package Analysis clear

Open a name for its full profile

Endor Labs
Scored
Endor Labs · Commercial · 6 capabilities in this domain · 4.13 / 5
Compare →
Socket
Scored
Socket · Freemium · 11 capabilities in this domain · 4.05 / 5
Compare →
Snyk Open Source
Scored
Snyk · Freemium · 6 capabilities in this domain · 3.99 / 5
Compare →
Echo Libraries
Capabilities only
Echo · Commercial · 6 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Checkmarx One SCA
Capabilities only
Checkmarx · Commercial · 4 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Mend SCA
Capabilities only
Mend.io · Commercial · 4 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Sonatype Lifecycle
Capabilities only
Sonatype · Commercial · 4 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Sonatype Repository Firewall
Capabilities only
Sonatype · Commercial · 4 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Chainguard Libraries
Capabilities only
Chainguard · Commercial · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Dependabot
Capabilities only
GitHub · Free · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
JFrog Curation
Capabilities only
JFrog · Commercial · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
JFrog Xray
Capabilities only
JFrog · Commercial · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
OSV-Scanner
Capabilities only
Google Open Source Security Team · Open Source · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Safety
Capabilities only
Safety Cybersecurity · Freemium · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Black Duck SCA
Capabilities only
Black Duck Software · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
FOSSA
Capabilities only
FOSSA · Freemium · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Open Source Insights (deps.dev)
Capabilities only
Google Open Source Security Team · Free · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
OpenSSF Package Analysis
Capabilities only
Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain
selected
Renovate
Capabilities only
Mend.io · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Veracode Software Composition Analysis
Capabilities only
Veracode · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →

In Dependency Management

Endor Labs

Endor Labs · Dependency Management

Close ×

CommercialCompany4.13 / 5

Endor Labs builds call graphs across first-party and open-source code to prioritize reachable vulnerabilities, scores dependency health, offers patched versions for hard upgrades and extends to AI-assisted SAST and CI/CD tool inventory.

What it does8 capabilities · 5 at full coverage

5 of 8 at full coverage.

CI/CD Configuration ScanningPartialCICD · level 2 · 7 providers
Malicious Package DetectionPartialDEPS · level 2 · 14 providers
Open Source Project Health ScoringFullDEPS · level 2 · 4 providers
Private Fix Backporting & Upstream ContributionPartialDEPS · level 5 · 5 providers
Reachability AnalysisFullDEPS · level 3 · 8 providers
Software Composition Analysis★FullDEPS · level 1 · 23 providers
Transitive Dependency ResolutionFullDEPS · level 2 · 4 providers
SBOM GenerationFullSBOM · level 2 · 28 providers

What it proves43 controls across 14 frameworks

Satisfied through its capabilities, not claimed by the vendor.

S2C2F8 / 25FIX-1 ING-3 INV-1 REB-3 SCA-1 SCA-2 SCA-3 SCA-4
Scorecard7 / 20Contributors Dangerous-Workflow Maintained Pinned-Dependencies SBOM Token-Permissions Vulnerabilities
SSDF 1.16 / 42PS.3.2 PW.4.1 PW.4.4 RV.1.1 RV.2.1 RV.2.2
CSF 2.05 / 106GV.SC-06 GV.SC-07 ID.AM-02 ID.RA-01 ID.RA-04
CIS Controls4 / 18CIS 10 CIS 16 CIS 2 CIS 7
CI/CD Top 103 / 10CICD-SEC-3 CICD-SEC-4 CICD-SEC-7
CRA2 / 41Annex I Part I (2)(a) Annex I Part II (1)
SP 800-204D2 / 11204D-CI-DEPS 204D-CI-EVIDENCE
ASVS 5.01 / 17V15
CNAS Top 101 / 10CNAS-7
DSOMM1 / 19TV-Static-Depth-Applications
LLM Top 101 / 10LLM03:2025
OWASP Top 101 / 10A03:2025
SAMM 2.01 / 90I-SB-2-B

What it stops11 techniques · 3 risks

11 techniques countered, 8 of them common

Exploitation of Known Vulnerable ComponentVery Common
Malicious Install-Time ScriptVery Common
Abandoned Package or Domain TakeoverCommon
Compromise Software Dependencies and Development ToolsT1195.001Common
Maintainer Account TakeoverCommon
Mutable Tag Hijack of CI Actions and ImagesCommon
Poisoned Pipeline ExecutionCommon
Workflow Script InjectionCommon
Self-Propagating Package WormEmerging
Protestware and Maintainer SabotageRare
SLSA threat DEP: Dependency threat (A–H applied recursively)SLSA-DEP

3 risks reduced

Malicious dependency executes in development or CICritical
Cannot determine exposure to a compromised componentHigh
Known vulnerability in a reachable dependency is exploitedHigh

Where it runs4 phases · 2 ways to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Plan1
Code5
Build6
Monitor1

How it is delivered

CI/CD integrationSaaS

What it unlocks7 activities · reaches level 5

Program activities its capabilities support, reaching level 5. Supporting an activity is not completing it.

Level 1

Generate SBOMs for critical releasesLow effort
Scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities and licensesLow effort
Scan pipeline definitions for dangerous patternsLow effort

Level 2

SBOM for every build in SPDX and CycloneDXLow effort

Level 3

Block malicious packages with behavioral analysisMedium effort

Level 4

Prioritize by reachability and curate an approved catalogMedium effort

Level 5

Consume dependencies rebuilt from verified sourceHigh effort

How it holds up13 criteria scored · 5 strengths · 5 limitations

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime4.1
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth4.0
Software supply chain and vendor risk visibility4.1
Accurate dependency and asset discovery4.6
Context-driven prioritization4.7
CI/CD and developer workflow integration4.0
APIs and extensibility4.1
Actionable remediation guidance4.2
Accuracy and noise4.6
Governance and compliance reporting4.0
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage4.0
Total cost and licensing fit3.4
Operational effort and skills required3.6

Strengths

Function-level reachability answers whether your code can actually call the vulnerable function
Call graph construction finds phantom and vendored dependencies that manifest parsing misses
Dependency health scoring covers maintainer activity and project risk not just vulnerabilities
Upgrade guidance ranked by breaking-change risk which is the question that actually blocks an upgrade
Free developer tier runs locally with no account

Limitations

No published pricing so every comparison starts with a sales conversation
The free tier is local-only with no interface policies or scan history so it is a developer utility not an evaluation
Reachability needs a build wired in for every language in the estate which is real integration work before any value appears
Reachability depth is uneven across languages and that depth is the reason to buy the product
Scan quotas are tied to seat count and heavy workflows need additional credits

Best for

Estates drowning in dependency findings that are not reachable
Organizations where the upgrade is blocked by fear of breaking something
Teams consolidating composition analysis and static analysis into one agreement

Differentiators

Function-level reachability rather than package-level matching
Call graphs instead of manifest parsing
Upgrade advice ranked by breaking-change risk

What it costs4 tiers · Per contributing developer · licensing notes

LicensingPer contributing developer

Priced percontributing developer per month

BillingSubscription

Scales withDevelopers contributing to monitored projects

CoreContact salescontributing developer/month · Monthly
DeveloperFreecontributing developer/month · MonthlyLocal only · No user interface · No policies · No scan history
ProContact salescontributing developer/month · Monthly
Planning estimateestimate$450contributing developer/year · Annual

Licensing in practice

Seat-based on 90-day contributing developers with volume discounts, sold through Core and Pro tiers with no published figures; a free local-only developer tier exists for evaluation of the scanning but not of the platform.

Total cost

Predictable per head; scanning more projects is free but adding teams is not; shared or service accounts need clarification in contracts.

What it takes to runStaffing, standing it up, and what it promises

Deployment

Wire the scanner into CI for each language so the call graph can be built; inventory-only results arrive quickly, reachability arrives once the build integration is done.

What it works with11 languages

Languages

C and C++C# and .NETGoJavaJavaScript and TypeScriptKotlinPHPPythonRubyRustScala

What else to look at1 alternative · 1 comparable head to head

Comparable head to head

Socketweighted →

Open-source alternatives

SocketFreemium · 4.05

What backs this up1 measurement

Measured, with how much to trust it

False Positive Rate8%Planning assumption for function-level reachability SCARockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13