AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Developer platform › SCA › OWASP Dependency-Track vs OWASP Dependency-Check
Software composition analysis · October 2026 Edition

OWASP Dependency-Track vs OWASP Dependency-Check

Zero of fourteen models named OWASP Dependency-Track first on the direct prompt; zero named OWASP Dependency-Check. OWASP Dependency-Track was named by ten of the fourteen models and OWASP Dependency-Check by fourteen and OWASP Dependency-Track carries 21 labels and OWASP Dependency-Check 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.

OWASP Dependency-Track

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

OWASP Dependency-Check

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share8%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%23%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels2135A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, OWASP Dependency-Track 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-Track · Trivy vs OWASP Dependency-Check · Snyk Open Source vs OWASP Dependency-Track

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-TrackFirst choices, of fourteen modelsOWASP Dependency-Check
Direct00
Paraphrase211 against OWASP Dependency-Check
Comparative00
Budget-constrained233 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.

Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, OWASP Dependency-Track and OWASP Dependency-Check were named in the same answer twenty-seven times, of the 40 answers naming OWASP Dependency-Track and the 99 naming OWASP Dependency-Check. In those answers OWASP Dependency-Check took the first choice five times and OWASP Dependency-Track six.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP Dependency-Track and OWASP Dependency-Check stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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-Track OWASP Dependency-Check first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP Dependency-Track on the left and OWASP Dependency-Check on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP Dependency-Track and OWASP Dependency-Check stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

1 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

Neither was named

13 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
Mistral SmallMend.io alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Insignary Clarity
DeepSeek V4 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
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
GLM 4.7 FlashXGitHub Advanced Security, Snyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Endor Labs, FOSSA, Mend.io, Sonatype Lifecycle
MiniMax M2.5Snyk Open Source, Sonatype Lifecycle alternatives: Black Duck, FOSSA, GitHub Advanced Security
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 14
OWASP Dependency-Track2%#– of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
OWASP Dependency-Track8%#4 of 17
OWASP Dependency-Check8%#5 of 17
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: OWASP Dependency-Track leads at enterprise.
OWASP Dependency-Track5%#6 of 14
OWASP Dependency-Check4%#10 of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about OWASP Dependency-Track

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“If you asked me to pick one for a mid-sized B2B company, I'd choose: Dependency-Track for centralized visibility and governance” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“OWASP Dependency-Track and Scanmycode.io are the top choices due to their open-source nature and lack of ongoing costs.” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
“Top Recommendation: OWASP Dependency-Track + Trivy (or Grype)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase 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

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.