IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Gitea/Forgejo · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Gitea/Forgejo

13Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

7 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

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Gitea/Forgejo was named 6 times in Source control, where GitHub led with 74%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business7 of 24

under the label threshold

Mid-market10 of 23

under the label threshold

Enterprise13 of 29

under the label threshold

In source control · 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 Gitea/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%	10 of 23	17%	6	under 10 labels · led by GitHub at 74%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Gitea/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 Gitea/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	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 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.

“Consider Gitea/Forgejo if you have technical staff and want the absolute lowest cost” Kimi K2 · Source control · budget prompt · alternative

“Gitea/Forgejo — if you need full on-prem control at a fraction of the cost.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Source control · scale prompt · alternative

“Gitea/Forgejo = best for small, self-hosted, lightweight setups.” Perplexity Sonar · Source control · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for the Absolute Lowest Cost: Gitea / Forgejo (Self-Hosted)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · 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.

“Self-hosting (e.g., Gitea/Forgejo on a $5/mo VPS) is truly $0 beyond infra but adds ops overhead—not "hosting."” Grok 4.1 Fast · Source control · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Gitea/Forgejo, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Gitea/Forgejo was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitHub13 of 1311Not in the top three

GitLab13 of 132Not in the top three

Bitbucket13 of 131Not in the top three

Azure Repos6 of 130Not in the top three

AWS CodeCommit3 of 130Not in the top three

Azure DevOps3 of 130Not in the top three

Codeberg2 of 130Not in the top three

Perforce1 of 130Not in the top three

Perforce Helix Core1 of 130Not in the top three

RhodeCode1 of 130Not 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 Gitea/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 11 of the 13 answers that named Gitea/Forgejo and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

mgsoftware.nl6

toolradar.com6

devopsboys.com5

g2.com5

rhodecode.com5

worldmetrics.org5

bmc.com4

gitnux.org4

note.com4

rewind.com4

Forty-eight of the forty-eight domain citations in answers naming Gitea/Forgejo came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

mgsoftware.nl/en/tools/best-version-control-systems6

bmc.com/blogs/github-vs-gitlab-vs-bitbucket4

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

note.com/snake_dragon/n/n87068052df3a4

rewind.com/blog/github-vs-bitbucket-vs-gitlab-comparison4

rhodecode.com/blog/170/best-self-hosted-source-code-management-platforms-in-20264

slant.co/topics/153/~best-hosted-version-control-services4

aimultiple.com/version-control-tools3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Gitea/Forgejo

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

Gitea / Forgejo 1Gitea / Forgejo (Self-Hosted) 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 Gitea/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 Gitea/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 gitea.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.