Software composition analysis · October 2026 Edition
Mend.io vs OWASP Dependency-Check
Seven of fourteen models named Mend.io first on the direct prompt; zero named OWASP Dependency-Check. Both were named by all fourteen models and Mend.io carries 37 labels and OWASP Dependency-Check 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share14%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate19%23%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#5A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels3735A 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 OWASP Dependency-Check · 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 modelsOWASP Dependency-Check
Direct70
Paraphrase011 against OWASP Dependency-Check
Comparative001 against Mend.io
Budget-constrained032 against Mend.io · 3 against OWASP Dependency-Check
Scale-constrained00
Negative004 against Mend.io · 4 against OWASP Dependency-Check
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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Mend.io and OWASP Dependency-Check were named in the same answer thirty-one times, of the 120 answers naming Mend.io and the 99 naming OWASP Dependency-Check. In those answers OWASP Dependency-Check took the first choice three times and Mend.io one.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Mend.io and OWASP Dependency-Check 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 OWASP Dependency-Check first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Mend.io on the left and OWASP Dependency-Check on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Mend.io and OWASP Dependency-Check stood in it.
Mend.io first, OWASP Dependency-Check not the choice
7 of 14 modelsOWASP Dependency-Check 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
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.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
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
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
OWASP Dependency-Check leads by fifteen points.
OWASP Dependency-Check15%#3 of 14Mend.io0%#13 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Mend.io leads at mid-market.
Mend.io14%#3 of 17OWASP Dependency-Check8%#5 of 17Enterprise
Mend.io leads by eleven points.
Mend.io14%#3 of 14OWASP Dependency-Check4%#10 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 OWASP Dependency-Check
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“useful as a free scanner, but I'd avoid treating its results as definitive ... can produce both false positives and false negatives” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“It has a higher false-positive rate than Trivy or Grype (due to CPE-based matching), so it requires more triage time.” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · soft negative
“Basic scanning, can be noisy, and is often cited as lacking the depth and automation of commercial tools.” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“OWASP Dependency-Check is a free, open-source SCA tool that provides basic CVE scanning for teams with limited budgets.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“the best starting point is usually OWASP Dependency-Check because it is free and open source” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
“the best default choice is usually OWASP Dependency-Check. It's free, open source” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Trivy vs Mend.ioTrivy vs OWASP Dependency-CheckSnyk Open Source vs Mend.ioSnyk Open Source vs OWASP Dependency-CheckMend.io vs OWASP Dependency-TrackMend.io vs GitHub DependabotMend.io vs Sonatype LifecycleMend.io vs GitHub Advanced SecurityOWASP Dependency-Track vs OWASP Dependency-CheckOWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Check vs Sonatype LifecycleOWASP Dependency-Check 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.