Every category where a model named Codeberg 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%	6 of 23	0%	11	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative16 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative22 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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 open source: Codeberg or SourceHut offer strong privacy commitments” MiniMax M2.5 · Source control · negative prompt · first choice

“Codeberg | Hosted, non-profit | Free, EU-based, open-source values” Kimi K2 · Source control · negative prompt · first choice

“Alternative: Consider Codeberg (a non-profit, privacy-focused Git host that actively bans generative-AI written repos and respects copyleft licensing)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Source control · negative prompt · alternative

“Codeberg and Forgejo are mentioned as alternatives that prioritize data retention within the EU and GDPR compliance.” Llama 4 Maverick · Source control · negative 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 Codeberg, over the 22 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Codeberg was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitHub22 of 2210Not in the top three

Bitbucket21 of 221Not in the top three

GitLab20 of 224Not in the top three

Gitea18 of 221Not in the top three

Forgejo14 of 221Not in the top three

SourceHut13 of 220Not in the top three

SourceForge9 of 220Not in the top three

Azure DevOps8 of 220Not in the top three

AWS CodeCommit6 of 220Not in the top three

Azure Repos4 of 220Not 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 Codeberg. 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 19 of the 22 answers that named Codeberg and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

note.com11

gitprotect.io7

jamdesk.com7

reddit.com7

g2.com6

opensourcereviews.github.io6

softwareengineering.stackexchange.com6

us.fitgap.com6

nhimg.org5

refine.dev5

Sixty-six of the sixty-six domain citations in answers naming Codeberg came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

note.com/snake_dragon/n/n87068052df3a11

jamdesk.com/blog/best-github-alternatives7

opensourcereviews.github.io/forge/index.html6

softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/167185/what-reasons-are-there-for-not-usin6

us.fitgap.com/search/version-control-hosting-software/small-business6

refine.dev/blog/github-alternatives5

devopsboys.com/blog/github-vs-gitlab-vs-bitbucket-20264

gitprotect.io/blog/top-git-hosting-services4

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 Codeberg'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 Codeberg, 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 codeberg.org 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.