Yes, you can run the same PoC on an open source scanner. The pass marks stay the same, but you add checks for setup effort, who maintains advisory data, who writes policy and reports, and what ongoing upkeep will cost in people time rather than license fees.
What stays the same
Coverage, accuracy, prioritization, workflow and fix success matter whatever the license. Use the same criteria table and the same sample repos. That also lets you compare a self run tool with a hosted one on equal terms. For the base plan, see the two week plan.
What changes
| Area | Hosted product | Self run open source |
|---|---|---|
| Setup | Vendor assists | You build it |
| Advisory data | Vendor refreshes | You choose sources and refresh cadence |
| Dashboards and reports | Included | You assemble or script |
| Policy and exceptions | Built in | You design and store them |
| Support | Contractual | Community and your own time |
| Upgrades | Vendor managed | You schedule and test |
None of these is a flaw. They are costs that move from a vendor to you, and the PoC should measure them.
Extra checks for a self run scanner
- Setup time. Log hours from nothing to first useful scan, including runners, tokens and network rules.
- Data source. Find out where advisories come from and how you refresh them. OSV, for example, describes itself as an aggregator of vulnerability databases that use the OpenSSF vulnerability format, and many open source scanners draw on it. Confirm which source your chosen tool uses and how often.
- Freshness. Run the advisory freshness test and see whether your refresh job keeps up.
- Output. Can it produce a format your downstream tools accept, and who maintains the glue code?
- Exceptions. Where are suppressions stored, and who reviews them? A file in the repo can be fine if someone owns it.
- Project health. Look at release cadence, open issues and how security reports are handled. A star count alone proves little.
Count the people cost
The cheapest tool to license can be the most expensive to run. Estimate monthly hours for updates, data refresh, rule tuning and reporting, then multiply by your own loaded rate. Put that figure beside any hosted alternative. Do this with your own numbers, not rules of thumb.
Running both side by side
Many teams test one of each. Use blind labeling, the same repos and the same time window, and measure triage minutes per finding as well as accuracy. Deduplicate findings by package, version and advisory aliases before comparing counts, or the tool that lists the same flaw twice will look noisier.
Risks to note
Check the license of the tool itself against how you plan to use it. Pin the version you test, so the result is repeatable. Verify downloads from the project's official release channel. Read what the scanner uploads, if anything, as in what data a scanner sends out.
The decision
An open source scanner passes if it meets the same marks and the upkeep fits your team. If it meets the marks but needs more care than you can give, that is a valid reason to prefer a hosted option, and the reverse can also hold.
Try it yourself
Open the demo to see the inventory output, then ask what it would take your team to build and keep the same view yourself.
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Quick check
Is open source automatically less accurate?
No. Accuracy depends on the matching logic and the data it uses. Measure it on your repos.
Do we still need the success criteria?
Yes, plus upkeep checks. The criteria are what make the comparison fair.
Sources
Safeguard offers SBOM and dependency scanning with reachability analysis, and you can try a free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan before you plan a longer test. The CLI, desktop app and IDE extensions are listed on safeguard.sh/download.
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
