Software composition analysis · October 2026 Edition
Mend.io vs GitHub Dependabot
Seven of fourteen models named Mend.io first on the direct prompt; zero named GitHub Dependabot. Mend.io was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and GitHub Dependabot by nine and Mend.io carries 37 labels and GitHub Dependabot 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share14%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate19%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels3717A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Mend.io 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 Mend.io · Trivy vs GitHub Dependabot · Snyk Open Source vs Mend.io
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.
Mend.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGitHub Dependabot
Direct70
Paraphrase00
Comparative001 against Mend.io
Budget-constrained042 against Mend.io
Scale-constrained00
Negative004 against Mend.io · 3 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 Mend.io and GitHub Dependabot 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 | | | |
Mend.io GitHub Dependabot first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Mend.io on the left and GitHub Dependabot on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Mend.io and GitHub Dependabot stood in it.
Mend.io first, GitHub Dependabot an alternative
7 of 14 modelsGitHub Dependabot was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Mend.io alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle
Perplexity SonarMend.io alternatives: Black Duck, Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle
Mistral SmallMend.io alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Insignary Clarity
Llama 4 MaverickMend.io
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
Muse Glimmer 30BMend.io alternatives: Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashAikido Security alternatives: Endor Labs, Mend.io, Snyk Open Source
Grok 4.1 FastSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
DeepSeek V4 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
GLM 4.7 FlashXGitHub Advanced Security, Snyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
GPT-6 LunaSnyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub's built-in supply-chain tools, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
Neither was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniSnyk Open Source alternatives: FOSSA, OWASP Dependency-Check, OWASP Dependency-Track
MiniMax M2.5Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle alternatives: Black Duck, FOSSA, GitHub Advanced Security
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 five points.
GitHub Dependabot5%#4 of 14Mend.io0%#13 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Mend.io leads at mid-market.
Mend.io14%#3 of 17GitHub Dependabot8%#6 of 17Enterprise
Mend.io leads by fourteen points.
Mend.io14%#3 of 14GitHub Dependabot0%#– of 14What the models said about Mend.io
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“This is the tool that surfaces most frequently in negative developer feedback” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Aggressive automation often creates noise by suggesting unnecessary updates or upgrades that introduce breaking changes.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“you do not need a high-end enterprise Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool (like Black Duck, Mend, or Sonatype)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies balancing security, compliance, and developer experience, Mend.io is the most frequently recommended choice.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“the best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool for a mid-market B2B company is Mend.io” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“The best software composition analysis tool for a mid-market B2B company is Mend.io” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice
What 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
Also compared
Trivy vs Mend.ioTrivy vs GitHub DependabotSnyk Open Source vs Mend.ioSnyk Open Source vs GitHub DependabotMend.io vs OWASP Dependency-TrackMend.io vs OWASP Dependency-CheckMend.io vs Sonatype LifecycleMend.io vs GitHub Advanced SecurityOWASP Dependency-Track vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub DependabotGitHub Dependabot vs Sonatype LifecycleGitHub Dependabot 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.