# GitHub Dependabot vs GitHub Advanced Security: which do AI models recommend for SCA, October 2026

IT AI Recommendation Index, October 2026 Edition, Software composition analysis. Zero of fourteen models named GitHub Dependabot first on the direct prompt; one named GitHub Advanced Security. Page: https://it-ai-index.com/developer/software-composition-analysis/github-dependabot-vs-github-advanced-security/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GitHub Dependabot | 8% | #6 of 17 | 18% | 17 | 9 of 14 |
| GitHub Advanced Security | 2% | #8 of 17 | 6% | 18 | 11 of 14 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- GLM 4.7 FlashX: github advanced security first (first choices: GitHub Advanced Security, Snyk Open Source) (alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle)
- Mistral Small: neither first, one named (first choices: Mend.io) (alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Insignary Clarity)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Mend.io) (alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Snyk Open Source)
- Kimi K2: neither first, one named (first choices: Mend.io, Snyk Open Source) (alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, GitHub Dependabot, Sonatype Lifecycle, Trivy)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle) (alternatives: Black Duck, FOSSA, GitHub Advanced Security)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither named (first choices: Mend.io) (alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Snyk Open Source) (alternatives: FOSSA, OWASP Dependency-Check, OWASP Dependency-Track)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither named (first choices: Aikido Security) (alternatives: Endor Labs, Mend.io, Snyk Open Source)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither named (first choices: Mend.io) (alternatives: Black Duck, Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither named (first choices: Snyk Open Source) (alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: neither named (first choices: Snyk Open Source) (alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named (first choices: Mend.io)
- GPT-6 Luna: neither named (first choices: Snyk Open Source) (alternatives: GitHub's built-in supply-chain tools, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle)
- Muse Glimmer 30B: neither named (first choices: Mend.io) (alternatives: Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle)

## What the models said about GitHub Dependabot

- "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

- "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)

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. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.