Software composition analysis · October 2026 Edition
GitHub Dependabot vs GitHub Advanced Security
Zero of fourteen models named GitHub Dependabot first on the direct prompt; one named GitHub Advanced Security. GitHub Dependabot was named by nine of the fourteen models and GitHub Advanced Security by eleven and GitHub Dependabot carries 17 labels and GitHub Advanced Security 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in five categories this edition.
First-choice share8%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate18%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#8A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels1718A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, GitHub Dependabot reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Snyk Open Source was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Trivy vs GitHub Dependabot · Trivy vs GitHub Advanced Security · Snyk Open Source vs GitHub Dependabot
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the software composition analysis page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
GitHub DependabotFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGitHub Advanced Security
Direct011 against GitHub Advanced Security
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained40
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against GitHub Dependabot
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where GitHub Dependabot and GitHub Advanced Security stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | ||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | |||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | |||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | |
GitHub Dependabot GitHub Advanced Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, GitHub Dependabot on the left and GitHub Advanced Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where GitHub Dependabot and GitHub Advanced Security stood in it.
GitHub Advanced Security first, GitHub Dependabot not the choice
1 of 14 modelsGitHub Dependabot was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GLM 4.7 FlashXGitHub Advanced Security, Snyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Mistral SmallMend.io alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Insignary Clarity
Qwen 3.7 FlashMend.io alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Snyk Open Source
Kimi K2Mend.io, Snyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, GitHub Dependabot, Sonatype Lifecycle, Trivy
MiniMax M2.5Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle alternatives: Black Duck, FOSSA, GitHub Advanced Security
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Mend.io alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle
GPT-5.4 miniSnyk Open Source alternatives: FOSSA, OWASP Dependency-Check, OWASP Dependency-Track
Gemini 3.5 FlashAikido Security alternatives: Endor Labs, Mend.io, Snyk Open Source
Perplexity SonarMend.io alternatives: Black Duck, Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle
Grok 4.1 FastSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
DeepSeek V4 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
Llama 4 MaverickMend.io
GPT-6 LunaSnyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub's built-in supply-chain tools, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
Muse Glimmer 30BMend.io alternatives: Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
GitHub Dependabot leads by three points.
GitHub Dependabot5%#4 of 14GitHub Advanced Security2%#8 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
GitHub Dependabot leads by six points.
GitHub Dependabot8%#6 of 17GitHub Advanced Security2%#8 of 17Enterprise
The order flips: GitHub Advanced Security leads at enterprise.
GitHub Advanced Security4%#9 of 14GitHub Dependabot0%#– of 14What the models said about GitHub Dependabot
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Useful for alerts, but sources warn about false positives, limited transitive analysis, and limited remediation automation in this basic form.” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“a reasonable choice for GitHub-based dependency alerts and updates, but don't assume it gives complete coverage of your software supply chain” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“Free/native, but basic (no deep reachability/licenses), prone to stale alerts” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“GitHub Dependabot is the zero-excuse baseline: dependency alerts and automated update PRs free on every repo” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“Best low-budget starting point: GitHub Dependabot if your code is already on GitHub.” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“the best place to start is GitHub Dependabot (if you're on GitHub) or Trivy” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about GitHub Advanced Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“GHAS is expensive and is sold as a bundled suite. If you only want SCA, paying for the entire suite might not make financial sense.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“For GitHub\u2011centric teams: Start with GitHub Advanced Security” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice
“Dependabot SCA + secret/code scanning from ~$19/user/mo (free for public repos). Native if your workflow is GitHub-centric.” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
Trivy vs GitHub DependabotTrivy vs GitHub Advanced SecuritySnyk Open Source vs GitHub DependabotSnyk Open Source vs GitHub Advanced SecurityMend.io vs GitHub DependabotMend.io vs GitHub Advanced SecurityOWASP Dependency-Track vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Track vs GitHub Advanced SecurityOWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub Advanced SecurityGitHub Dependabot vs Sonatype LifecycleSonatype Lifecycle vs GitHub Advanced SecurityAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full SCA standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.