Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 21 → 16 of 44
GitLab · 1 category · Named, not rankedGitLab Dependency Scanning
12Judge labels
0First choices
1Negative labels
5 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, 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. GitLab Dependency Scanning was named 5 times in SCA, where Trivy led with 31%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business16 of 49
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market29 of 50
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise23 of 56
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
In sca · 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 GitLab Dependency Scanning 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Software composition analysis | Developer platform | 0% | 29 of 50 | 20% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 31% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, GitLab Dependency Scanning held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · SCA · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 22 → 27 of 43
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 15 → 23 of 47
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCA | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 22 → 29 of 50 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated GitLab Dependency Scanning across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated GitLab Dependency Scanning across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct2 labelsNone
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative3 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative2 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 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.
No positive label carried a quote.
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.
“Free/native, but basic (no deep reachability/licenses), prone to stale alerts” Grok 4.20 · SCA · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as GitLab Dependency Scanning, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GitLab Dependency Scanning was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as GitLab Dependency Scanning, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GitLab Dependency Scanning was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 GitLab Dependency Scanning. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 12 of the 12 answers that named GitLab Dependency Scanning and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
endorlabs.com8
cycode.com7
appsecsanta.com5
ox.security5
plexicus.ai5
sonatype.com5
aikido.dev4
guideflow.com4
reddit.com4
codeant.ai3
Fifty of the fifty domain citations in answers naming GitLab Dependency Scanning came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where GitLab Dependency Scanning stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where GitLab Dependency Scanning stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 170 a month (“gitlab dependency scanning”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on GitLab's site (gitlab.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 29 of 50 in SCA
Segment leader
31%
Trivy
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 12 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 12 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
Names read as GitLab Dependency Scanning
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as GitLab Dependency Scanning; a claim can dispute any of them.
GitLab 3GitLab Ultimate 1
Follow GitLab Dependency Scanning
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
GitLab is the company behind GitLab Dependency Scanning.ShowHide
The company
GitLab is the company behind GitLab Dependency Scanning.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIs 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 GitLab Dependency Scanning'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 GitLab Dependency Scanning, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for GitLab Dependency Scanning by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where GitLab Dependency Scanning is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name GitLab Dependency Scanning, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.