Every category where a model named AWS CodeCommit for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Source control hosting	Developer platform	0%	16 of 23	36%	11	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AWS CodeCommit yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated AWS CodeCommit across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	2	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative14 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative36 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“if you're AWS-centric, CodeCommit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Source control · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“It lacks the modern visual collaboration features, rich PR review interfaces, and community hubs found on GitHub or GitLab.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Source control · comparative prompt · soft negative

“Corporate Deprecation Risk: ... could face sudden policy changes or future deprecation sweeps” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Source control · negative prompt · soft negative

“less feature-rich for collaboration compared to GitHub or GitLab” Mistral Small · Source control · comparative prompt · soft negative

“Otherwise it's the least feature-rich of the group.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Source control · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AWS CodeCommit, over the 36 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AWS CodeCommit was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitHub36 of 3625Not in the top three

GitLab34 of 3610Not in the top three

Bitbucket34 of 360Not in the top three

Azure Repos19 of 360Not in the top three

Gitea19 of 360Not in the top three

Azure DevOps11 of 360Not in the top three

Forgejo9 of 360Not in the top three

SourceForge9 of 360Not in the top three

Perforce Helix Core8 of 360Not in the top three

Gogs7 of 360Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named AWS CodeCommit. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 28 of the 36 answers that named AWS CodeCommit and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com14

guideflow.com14

mgsoftware.nl12

us.fitgap.com10

viasocket.com10

worldmetrics.org10

reddit.com9

bmc.com8

gitprotect.io8

note.com8

103 of the 103 domain citations in answers naming AWS CodeCommit came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/version-control-software14

mgsoftware.nl/en/tools/best-version-control-systems12

viasocket.com/discovery/blog/gq33cp/version-control-tools/10-best-version-control-tools-fo9

worldmetrics.org/best/source-code-control-software9

bmc.com/blogs/github-vs-gitlab-vs-bitbucket8

note.com/snake_dragon/n/n87068052df3a8

us.fitgap.com/search/version-control-hosting-software/small-business7

devopsboys.com/blog/github-vs-gitlab-vs-bitbucket-20266

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AWS CodeCommit's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AWS CodeCommit, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at awscodecommit.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.