IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › JFrog · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

JFrog

2Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

2 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. JFrog was named 1 time in SCA, where Trivy led with 40%. 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-market32 of 49

under the label threshold

Enterprise43 of 49

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 JFrog 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
Software composition analysis	Developer platform	0%	32 of 49	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 40%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

“Enterprise / Heavyweight: Synopsys (Black Duck), Checkmarx (Xray), JFrog (Advanced Security)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · SCA · scale 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 JFrog, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and JFrog was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Black Duck2 of 20Not in the top three

Mend.io2 of 20Not in the top three

Sonatype Lifecycle2 of 20Not in the top three

Veracode2 of 20Not in the top three

Checkmarx1 of 20Not in the top three

GitHub1 of 20Not in the top three

GitHub Dependabot1 of 20Not in the top three

JFrog Xray1 of 20Not in the top three

OWASP Dependency-Check1 of 20Not in the top three

Renovate1 of 20Not 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 JFrog. 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 1 of the 2 answers that named JFrog and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

aikido.dev1

blackduck.com1

blog.jetbrains.com1

cycode.com1

endorlabs.com1

gitnux.org1

guideflow.com1

linuxfoundation.org1

oligo.security1

owasp.org1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming JFrog came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

aikido.dev/blog/supply-chain-security-sca-tools-guide1

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

blackduck.com/glossary/what-is-software-composition-analysis.html1

blog.jetbrains.com/qodana/2025/09/best-software-composition-analysis-tools1

cycode.com/blog/sca-tools-guide1

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools1

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools-05b7a1

gitnux.org/best/software-composition-analysis-software1

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 JFrog'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 JFrog, 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 jfrog.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.