IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › OSS Review Toolkit · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

OSS Review Toolkit

3Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative 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. OSS Review Toolkit 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 business28 of 50

under the label threshold

Mid-market10 of 49

under the label threshold

Enterprise24 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 OSS Review Toolkit 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	2%	10 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 OSS Review Toolkit 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 OSS Review Toolkit across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1
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	0	0
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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“OWASP Dependency-Check and ORT are excellent starting points because they're open-source with no licensing fees” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SCA · budget prompt · first choice

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 OSS Review Toolkit, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OSS Review Toolkit was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OWASP Dependency-Check3 of 30Not in the top three

OWASP Dependency-Track1 of 31Not in the top three

Semgrep Supply Chain1 of 31Not in the top three

DeepSCA1 of 30Not in the top three

FOSSA1 of 30Not in the top three

Snyk Open Source1 of 30Not in the top three

Trivy1 of 30Not 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 OSS Review Toolkit. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named OSS Review Toolkit and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

endorlabs.com2

g2.com2

kiuwan.com2

slashdot.org2

thectoclub.com2

trustradius.com2

appsecsanta.com1

bestdefense.io1

cycode.com1

github.com1

Sixteen of the sixteen domain citations in answers naming OSS Review Toolkit came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools-05b7a2

kiuwan.com/blog/software-composition-analysis-tools2

slashdot.org/software/software-composition-analysis-sca/free-version2

thectoclub.com/tools/best-software-composition-analysis-tools2

trustradius.com/categories/software-composition-analysis2

appsecsanta.com/sca-tools/sbom-tools-comparison1

bestdefense.io/blog/best-sbom-tools-a-2026-buyers-guide1

cycode.com/blog/top-enterprise-sca-tools1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OSS Review Toolkit

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

ORT 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 OSS Review Toolkit'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 OSS Review Toolkit, 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 ossreviewtoolkit.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.