Software composition analysis · October 2026 Edition
OWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub Advanced Security
Zero of fourteen models named OWASP Dependency-Check first on the direct prompt; one named GitHub Advanced Security. OWASP Dependency-Check was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and GitHub Advanced Security by eleven and OWASP Dependency-Check carries 35 labels and GitHub Advanced Security 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories 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 rate23%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#8A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels3518A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, OWASP Dependency-Check 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 OWASP Dependency-Check · Trivy vs GitHub Advanced Security · Snyk Open Source vs OWASP Dependency-Check
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.
OWASP Dependency-CheckFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGitHub Advanced Security
Direct011 against GitHub Advanced Security
Paraphrase101 against OWASP Dependency-Check
Comparative00
Budget-constrained303 against OWASP Dependency-Check
Scale-constrained00
Negative004 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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP Dependency-Check 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 | |
OWASP Dependency-Check GitHub Advanced Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP Dependency-Check on the left and GitHub Advanced Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP Dependency-Check and GitHub Advanced Security stood in it.
GitHub Advanced Security first, OWASP Dependency-Check not the choice
1 of 14 modelsOWASP Dependency-Check 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
5 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
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
8 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
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
OWASP Dependency-Check leads by thirteen points.
OWASP Dependency-Check15%#3 of 14GitHub Advanced Security2%#8 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP Dependency-Check leads by six points.
OWASP Dependency-Check8%#5 of 17GitHub Advanced Security2%#8 of 17Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
OWASP Dependency-Check4%#10 of 14GitHub Advanced Security4%#9 of 14What 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
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 OWASP Dependency-CheckTrivy vs GitHub Advanced SecuritySnyk Open Source vs OWASP Dependency-CheckSnyk Open Source vs GitHub Advanced SecurityMend.io vs OWASP Dependency-CheckMend.io vs GitHub Advanced SecurityOWASP Dependency-Track vs OWASP Dependency-CheckOWASP Dependency-Track vs GitHub Advanced SecurityOWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Check vs Sonatype LifecycleGitHub Dependabot vs GitHub Advanced SecuritySonatype 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.