Endor Labs and Kusari both do reachability analysis, so if you've already accepted that argument you're past the part most vendors spend their pitch on. What's left to decide is what the reachability runs against, and what it costs to stand up. Kusari builds its graph from the build-time SBOM your pipeline already produces, with no build step of its own and no toolchain to configure, and includes SBOM and VEX management in the base platform. It also ingests findings from the scanners you already own, so one graph covers the whole estate and answers questions in plain language.
Reachability is the row you'd expect to be contested, and it's the one we agree on. The differences sit in coverage, in what ships with the base platform, and in what it takes to deploy.
| Capability | Kusari | Endor Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability reachability analysis | Yes | Yes |
| Natural-language query across the whole estate | Yes | No |
| Build-time SBOM captured from every pipeline run, included | Yes | Partial Requires additional configuration |
| SBOM and VEX management in the base platform | Yes | Partial Paid upgrade |
| Ingests and normalizes findings from your existing scanners | Yes | No |
| Provenance and lineage visualization across projects | Yes | No |
| Infrastructure as Code analyzed in the same pull request check | Yes | No |
| What analysis needs from you | An SBOM, which we generate if your pipeline doesn't produce one | Partial A build of your code and toolchain configuration |
| Where your source sits during analysis | Stays in your repositories by default | Partial Your code is built for analysis |
Endor Labs made the reachability argument before most of the market was ready to hear it, and the industry moved because of vendors like them. We're on the same side of that argument.
Program analysis is their center of gravity. Deciding whether a vulnerable function is actually callable is hard engineering, and building a company around it means the depth is real. If that analysis is the thing you're buying, you're buying it from people who focus on it.
The noise problem is the one they set out to solve. If your situation is a large pile of SCA findings and a team that needs to know which ones can actually be exploited, that's the brief, and they answer it.
Developers get an answer they can act on. A finding that comes with "this path is reachable from your code" is a different conversation from a severity score, and it's the kind of context that gets a fix merged instead of deferred.
If reachability is the whole of the problem you're solving, nothing on this page is an argument for changing course.
Reachability answers a question about the code it analyzed. Most of the questions a security team gets asked are about everything else.
Coverage is bounded by what you onboarded. Reachability is only as good as the graph beneath it, and that graph covers the projects you've stood the tooling up on. When something drops and the question is "which of our applications have this, and what's the blast radius," you need one model of the whole estate that you can interrogate directly. Asking it in plain language and getting an answer back is a different capability from running a scan and reading a report.
The evidence layer is a separate line item. Build-time SBOM capture takes additional configuration, and SBOM and VEX management sit behind a paid upgrade. For a regulated buyer that inverts the order of things: the artifacts an auditor asks for become the add-on, and the analysis you already bought can't produce them on its own.
Your other scanners stay in their own consoles. Nothing ingests and normalizes findings from the tools you already own, so adding a reachability product to an estate that already has three scanners gives you a fourth console and the same correlation problem. The SBOMs your suppliers send you have nowhere to go at all.
Provenance doesn't come with it. There's no lineage view across projects, so "where did this component come from, what pulled it in, and can we trust the build that produced it" stays an investigation. That's the question SolarWinds and the XZ backdoor were both actually about, and reachability doesn't reach it.
Standing it up is an engineering project. Analysis needs a build of your code and a toolchain configured for it. On a mixed estate — several languages, some of it inherited, build systems nobody has touched in three years — that work lands on the teams you were hoping to take work away from.
Reachability is a feature of the graph here, and the graph is the product.
Kusari captures a build-time SBOM from every pipeline run you already do, across every repository connected to it, and assembles those into one continuously updated model of the estate. There's no build step of its own to stand up and no toolchain to configure, because the thing it reads is output your builds already produce. Your source stays in your repositories.
Everything lands in the same graph. Repositories, dependencies, SBOMs — including the ones your suppliers send you — and findings from the scanners you already own all normalize into one queryable model, the intelligence layer above your existing stack. Adding Kusari reduces the number of places you have to look.
You can ask it questions. Natural-language queries run against the whole estate, so the blast-radius question after a disclosure takes a sentence and returns an answer with the reasoning attached. Provenance and lineage are visualized across projects, which is what makes "what pulled this in, and can we trust the build that produced it" answerable at all.
Kusari Score ranks across the whole estate. Technical severity weighed against how widely the affected component is used everywhere you run it, with a CISA KEV listing setting a floor of 9 out of 10 and EPSS setting one where there's no KEV entry. Reachability analysis or a VEX document you provide takes an application out of the calculation entirely when the vulnerable path can't be hit, and SBOM and VEX management come in the base platform.
One pull request check covers the change. Dependencies, secrets, typosquats, low OpenSSF Scorecard results and infrastructure as code all get looked at in the same check, with a proceed or do-not-proceed verdict attached before the change merges.
Kusari's founders co-created the open standards now used by Google, Microsoft, Intel, Citi and Red Hat to secure their own supply chains.
If the reachability is working for you, keep it. Kusari sits above it and takes its findings as one more input.
Kusari ingests and normalizes results from the scanners you already own, so running both is a real option and the usual way teams evaluate it. Give it a few weeks on your own estate and compare the two lists, which tells you more than any feature table can. If Endor Labs isn't the only thing you're weighing, you can compare Kusari against other supply chain security tools on the hub.
Three things worth planning for:
Kusari reads the SBOM your pipeline already emits on each run, so this is a permissions conversation with whoever owns your pipelines. There's no build step of ours to add and no toolchain to configure. Most teams go repo by repo instead of all at once.
If you've been generating SBOMs and VEX documents somewhere else, or not at all, this is the point to decide that the graph is the system of record. It's less a migration than a decision nobody had to make while the artifacts were an add-on.
Ranking across the estate moves things. A finding that looked low in one project can come to the top because the component sits under half your services. Nothing is deleted, and every change keeps its reasoning on the record.
For the reachability piece you're comparing like with like, and both of us do it. Where they differ is everything around it: whether the graph covers your whole estate or the projects you've onboarded, whether SBOM and VEX management come in the base platform, and whether findings from the other scanners you own have anywhere to land. Kusari isn't a scanner, it's what makes your scanner results meaningful.
What the reachability runs against. Reachability tells you whether a vulnerable function can be hit in the code it analyzed, which makes the coverage and freshness of the underlying graph the thing that actually determines your answer. Kusari builds that graph from the SBOM your pipeline already produces on every run, across every repository connected to it, and keeps it current as code moves.
No. Kusari reads the build-time SBOM your existing pipeline produces, so there's no build step of its own to stand up and no toolchain to configure for it. If your pipeline doesn't produce one, Kusari generates it. Either way it needs access to CI, so the ask is a permissions conversation with whoever owns your pipelines.
No. Kusari works from the SBOM and build metadata your pipeline emits, so analysis doesn't require shipping your source anywhere. We don't store your code.
Yes, and for a while that's the sensible way to evaluate it. Kusari ingests and normalizes findings from scanners you already own, so anything already running becomes an input to the graph instead of a second console to check. Comparing the two lists on your own estate for a few weeks tells you more than any feature table can.
Less than thirty minutes on a public repository. We run it live, you watch, and you keep any pull requests it opens.
We run Kusari on a public repo of your choice, live, for thirty minutes. It resolves the dependency tree, sorts what's affected from what isn't, and ranks what's left by Kusari Score. If you want us to, we'll open pull requests for anything currently open and fixable before the time is up, and you keep those whether or not you decide to keep talking to us.