Every category where a model named Codacy 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
Static application security testing	Developer platform	0%	14 of 47	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Semgrep at 47%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Codacy 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 Codacy across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained11 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 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.

“For $15/user/month, Codacy provides SAST, SCA, DAST... best for small to mid-size teams” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SAST · budget prompt · alternative

“You want a hosted, all‑in‑one solution (no ops to manage) → Codacy or CodeAnt AI.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · SAST · budget prompt · alternative

“Codacy, which is an all-in-one tool for budget-conscious teams” Llama 4 Maverick · SAST · budget prompt · alternative

“Best Value Paid Tool (Under $100/mo) ... Codacy” Qwen 3.7 Flash · SAST · budget 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Codacy, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Codacy was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Semgrep18 of 1817Not in the top three

SonarQube15 of 182Not in the top three

Snyk Code11 of 181Not in the top three

CodeQL10 of 180Not in the top three

Bandit9 of 180Not in the top three

CodeAnt AI8 of 180Not in the top three

Qodana8 of 180Not in the top three

gosec8 of 180Not in the top three

Checkmarx One6 of 180Not in the top three

DeepSource6 of 180Not 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 Codacy. 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 18 of the 18 answers that named Codacy and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

dev.to17

appsecsanta.com11

zeropath.com11

safeguard.sh8

corgea.com7

checkmarx.com6

deepsource.com6

g2.com6

augmentcode.com5

endorlabs.com5

Eighty-two of the eighty-two domain citations in answers naming Codacy came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

dev.to/rahulxsingh/i-reviewed-32-sast-tools-the-ones-worth-using-283e15

dev.to/rahulxsingh/11-best-sast-tools-in-2026-static-application-security-testing-compared12

zeropath.com/blog/best-sast-tools11

appsecsanta.com/sast-tools7

corgea.com/learn/best-sast-tools7

appsecsanta.com/sast-tools/open-source-sast-tools6

checkmarx.com/learn/sast/open-source-vs-premium-sast-tools6

deepsource.com/resources/static-analysis-tools6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Codacy

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Codacy; a claim can dispute any of them.

Codacy Pro 2

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 Codacy'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 Codacy, 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 codacy.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.