IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Corgea · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Corgea

11Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Corgea was named 5 times in SAST, where Semgrep led with 47%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business18 of 43

under the label threshold

Mid-market18 of 47

under the label threshold

Enterprise21 of 43

under the label threshold

In sast · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Corgea 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%	18 of 47	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Semgrep at 47%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Corgea 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 Corgea 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	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative7 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 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.

“Corgea is recommended if you want AI-native SAST, contextual detection, low-noise findings, and autofix inside developer workflows.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SAST · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Corgea, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Corgea was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Semgrep10 of 111Not in the top three

Checkmarx One9 of 112Not in the top three

Veracode9 of 111Not in the top three

Snyk Code8 of 111Not in the top three

OpenText Fortify8 of 110Not in the top three

Aikido Security6 of 111Not in the top three

SonarQube5 of 110Not in the top three

CodeQL4 of 110Not in the top three

ZeroPath4 of 110Not in the top three

GitHub Advanced Security / CodeQL3 of 110Not 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 Corgea. 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 8 of the 11 answers that named Corgea and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

corgea.comYour site8

zeropath.com7

endorlabs.com6

pixee.ai6

appsecsanta.com5

augmentcode.com5

ox.security5

checkmarx.com4

opsera.ai4

aikido.dev3

Forty-five of the fifty-three domain citations in answers naming Corgea came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

corgea.com/learn/best-sast-tools8

zeropath.com/blog/best-sast-tools7

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sast-tools6

pixee.ai/blog/best-sast-tools-20266

ox.security/blog/static-application-security-sast-tools5

appsecsanta.com/sast-tools4

augmentcode.com/tools/enterprise-sast-tools-large-teams-field-guide4

opsera.ai/blog/sast-tools4

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 Corgea'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 Corgea, 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 corgea.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.