Small business▲+12Since September 2026: 5% → 17%, +12 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.
17%from 5% in September 2026
Cleared the floor by 1 pointRank 4 → 2 of 44
3 categories · RankedOWASP Dependency-Check
99Judge labels
15First choices
29Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
3Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
15% in SCA for small business buyers
Rank 5 of 50 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 23% of its 35 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of OWASP Dependency-Check →By buyer segmentStrongest at small business.
Small business3 of 49
15%41 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market5 of 50
8%35 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise11 of 56
4%19 labels
criticized challenger
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 OWASP Dependency-Check 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 | 8% | 5 of 50 | 23% | 35 | accepted challenger | ▼−5Since September 2026: 14% → 9%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Application security posture management | Developer platform | 0% | 50 of 70 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Aikido Security at 37% | |
| Static application security testing | Developer platform | 0% | 44 of 71 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Semgrep at 36% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, OWASP Dependency-Check held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · SCA · by segment
Mid-market▼−5Since September 2026: 14% → 9%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
9%from 14% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 6 pointsRank 4 of 43, unchanged
Enterprise▼−1Since September 2026: 5% → 4%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 5% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 8 → 10 of 47
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCA | 14% | 9% | ▼−5Since September 2026: 14% → 9%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 4 → 5 of 50 |
| ASPM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 50 of 70, unchanged |
| SAST | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 44 of 71, unchanged |
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 OWASP Dependency-Check 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 OWASP Dependency-Check 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 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
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
Direct6 labelsNone
Paraphrase35 labels10
Comparative12 labels2not counted in share
Budget-constrained22 labels5
Scale-constrained4 labelsNone
Negative20 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative99 labels in all, every segment counted; 15 of the 18 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 is a free, open-source SCA tool that provides basic CVE scanning for teams with limited budgets.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SCA · budget prompt · first choice
“the best starting point is usually OWASP Dependency-Check because it is free and open source” Perplexity Sonar · SCA · budget prompt · first choice
“the best default choice is usually OWASP Dependency-Check. It's free, open source” GPT-5.4 mini · SCA · budget prompt · first choice
“## Top Recommendation: OWASP Dependency-Check” MiniMax M2.5 · SCA · paraphrase 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.
“useful as a free scanner, but I'd avoid treating its results as definitive ... can produce both false positives and false negatives” GPT-6 Luna · SCA · negative prompt · soft negative
“It has a higher false-positive rate than Trivy or Grype (due to CPE-based matching), so it requires more triage time.” Kimi K2 · SCA · budget prompt · soft negative
“Basic scanning, can be noisy, and is often cited as lacking the depth and automation of commercial tools.” Perplexity Sonar · SCA · negative prompt · soft negative
“Extremely high false positives (no reachability), slow scans on large projects... scales poorly” Grok 4.20 · SCA · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as OWASP Dependency-Check, over the 99 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP Dependency-Check was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as OWASP Dependency-Check, over the 99 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP Dependency-Check 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 OWASP Dependency-Check. 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 95 of the 99 answers that named OWASP Dependency-Check and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
guideflow.com59
appsecsanta.com46
safeguard.sh41
aikido.dev39
checkmarx.com34
dupple.com31
endorlabs.com30
sonatype.com28
expertinsights.com24
dev.to23
355 of the 355 domain citations in answers naming OWASP Dependency-Check came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
owasp.org ranks 3 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, OWASP Dependency-Check takes 8% of first choices and Trivy takes 31%.ShowHide
Search and answers
owasp.org ranks 3 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, OWASP Dependency-Check takes 8% of first choices and Trivy takes 31%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “software composition analysis tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “software composition analysis tools”
3
- Searches for its name, Google
- 720 a month (“owasp dependency-check”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 10 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 365,222 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 104,405 · 3,003 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 65,251
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
8%
rank 5 of 50 in SCA
Segment leader
31%
Trivy
- First choices
- 15 across its categories
- Named in
- 99 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 95 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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on owasp.org
893
subdomains included
Content
154
counted in the table below
Documentation
1
Product · Integration
30 · 216
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 86 | 0 | 2025-08-05 | ||
| Conference or event | 35 | 0 | 2025-11-14 | ||
| News or press | 18 | 0 | 2024-11-20 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 7 | 0 | 2026-05-13 | ||
| Podcast or video | 4 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 3 | 0 | 2024-05-08 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-05-13Gen ai project application security risk virtual summit webinar or virtual event
- 2025-11-14Genai security project agentic ai summit europe conference or event
- 2025-08-30Genai security project uae summit hackathon conference or event
- 2025-08-28Owasp 2025 global appsec usa washington dc conference or event
- 2025-08-27Gen ai application security risk virtual conference webinar or virtual event
- 2025-08-06Owasp genai agentic security top 10 global kick off livestream webinar or virtual event
Events in person
Upcoming
- November 5, 2026 to November 6, 2026OWASP Global AppSec USA 2026Hyatt Regency San Francisco, San Francisco, USA · hosts
Last twelve months
- March 25, 2026OWASP GenAI Security Summit 2026 @ RSAC 2026 – Safeguarding GenAI Agents & Anonymous Risk in 2026Moscone Conference Center – Moscone South – Room 303, San Francisco, USA · hosted
- March 25, 2026OWASP GenAI Security Open Workshop & Agentic Hackathon at RSAC’26DigitalJungleSF, 972 Mission St, San Francisco, USA · hosted
- March 25, 2026OWASP GenAI Security RSAC’26 Jungle Party of The CenturyDigitalJungleSF, 972 Mission St, San Francisco, USA · attended
- March 23, 2026OWASP GenAI Security – RSAC’26 Kickoff PartyJames Bong Building, Market St Floor 2, San Francisco, USA · hosted
As the event pages on owasp.org state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page owasp.org exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as OWASP Dependency-Check
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as OWASP Dependency-Check; a claim can dispute any of them.
OWASP Dependency‑Check 1
Follow OWASP Dependency-Check
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
OWASP Dependency-Check is its own company.ShowHide
The company
OWASP Dependency-Check is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Dependency-Check is a Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool suite that identifies project dependencies and checks if there are any known, publicly disclosed, vulnerabilities.
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What OWASP Dependency-Check's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: owasp.org/projects/dependency-check, owasp.org, owasp.org/security. A claimed page can correct any of 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 OWASP Dependency-Check'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 OWASP Dependency-Check, 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 OWASP Dependency-Check by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where OWASP Dependency-Check 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 OWASP Dependency-Check, 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.