Every category where a model named Forgejo 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%	8 of 23	22%	18	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Forgejo 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 Forgejo 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	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	1	1	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	2	1	1	4
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative16 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative36 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“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

“point more favorably toward self-hosted GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo, SourceHut, or Codeberg” Perplexity Sonar · Source control · negative prompt · alternative

“Consider self-hosted options (GitLab CE, Gitea, Forgejo) if data sovereignty is critical” MiniMax M2.5 · Source control · negative prompt · alternative

“Zero ongoing fees + minimal maintenance | Gitea (or Forgejo)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Source control · 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.

“Setting up your own Git server using open-source tools like Gitea, Forgejo, or GitLab Community Edition (CE)... Security Overhead” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Source control · negative prompt · soft negative

“For maximum control, self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo is best, but only if you commit to patching it weekly.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Source control · negative prompt · soft negative

“Avoid unless experienced (higher risk than pro cloud for most)... Use Forgejo/Gitea for lightweight.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Source control · negative prompt · soft negative

“Use with Caution (Self-Hosted): GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo (requires constant vigilance)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Source control · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

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

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitHub36 of 3618Not in the top three

Gitea36 of 361Not in the top three

Bitbucket35 of 361Not in the top three

GitLab34 of 364Not in the top three

Azure DevOps16 of 360Not in the top three

Codeberg14 of 362Not in the top three

SourceHut10 of 361Not in the top three

SourceForge10 of 360Not in the top three

AWS CodeCommit9 of 360Not in the top three

Azure Repos5 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 Forgejo. 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 29 of the 36 answers that named Forgejo and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

note.com17

reddit.com10

mgsoftware.nl9

us.fitgap.com9

gitprotect.io8

guideflow.com8

softwareengineering.stackexchange.com8

worldmetrics.org7

en.wikipedia.org6

jamdesk.com6

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

Pages cited

note.com/snake_dragon/n/n87068052df3a17

mgsoftware.nl/en/tools/best-version-control-systems9

guideflow.com/blog/version-control-software8

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

jamdesk.com/blog/best-github-alternatives6

opensourcereviews.github.io/forge/index.html6

refine.dev/blog/github-alternatives6

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

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Forgejo

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

Forgejo/Gitea 1Gitea and Forgejo 1

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 Forgejo'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 Forgejo, 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 forgejo.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.