IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Gitleaks · September 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

Gitleaks

6Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

3Categories

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

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Gitleaks was named 3 times in DLP and 2 other categories, where Microsoft Purview DLP led with 39%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market53 of 84

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In dlp · 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 Gitleaks 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
Data loss prevention	Security operations	0%	53 of 84	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview DLP at 39%
Secrets management	Identity and access	0%	30 of 40	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Doppler at 33%
Static application security testing	Developer platform	0%	33 of 47	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Semgrep at 47%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	1
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

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.

“These tools *detect* secrets but often do not solve the lifecycle problem.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Secrets · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Gitleaks, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Gitleaks was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Semgrep3 of 63Not in the top three

Trivy3 of 61Not in the top three

SonarQube3 of 60Not in the top three

TruffleHog3 of 60Not in the top three

Bandit2 of 60Not in the top three

Brakeman2 of 60Not in the top three

Codacy2 of 60Not in the top three

CodeQL2 of 60Not in the top three

gosec2 of 60Not in the top three

Microsoft Purview DLP1 of 61Not 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 Gitleaks. 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 5 of the 6 answers that named Gitleaks and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

safeguard.sh4

appsecsanta.com3

aicodereview.cc1

aicoolies.com1

aikido.dev1

aimultiple.com1

appscan.dev1

augmentcode.com1

bedda.tech1

blog.gitguardian.com1

Fifteen of the fifteen domain citations in answers naming Gitleaks came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

safeguard.sh/resources/blog/free-sast-tools2

aicodereview.cc/blog/best-sast-tools1

aicoolies.com/comparisons/snyk-vs-semgrep-vs-sonarqube1

aikido.dev/blog/top-enterprise-sca-tools1

aikido.dev/blog/top-open-source-dependency-scanners1

aimultiple.com/open-source-dlp-software1

appscan.dev/blog/best-free-sast-tools-20261

appsecsanta.com/open-source-tools1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Gitleaks

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

GitLeaks 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 Gitleaks'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 Gitleaks, 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 gitleaks.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.