Every category where a model named OWASP Dependency-Track 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%	6 of 49	0%	11	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1

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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase14 labels7

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained6 labels2

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative30 labels in all, every segment counted; 9 of the 9 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.

“start with Trivy or OWASP Dependency-Track for full-featured, free SCA” Mistral Small · SCA · budget prompt · first choice

“optionally paired with OWASP Dependency-Track for centralized tracking” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SCA · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“better if you want a centralized vulnerability management platform” GPT-5.4 mini · SCA · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“For portfolio monitoring, pair with OWASP Dependency-Track (free OSS).” Grok 4.1 Fast · SCA · paraphrase 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 OWASP Dependency-Track, over the 30 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP Dependency-Track was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OWASP Dependency-Check20 of 303Not in the top three

Trivy19 of 307Not in the top three

Snyk Open Source17 of 306Not in the top three

Black Duck12 of 300Not in the top three

Mend.io10 of 301Not in the top three

Grype9 of 300Not in the top three

Sonatype Lifecycle7 of 301Not in the top three

FOSSA7 of 300Not in the top three

JFrog Xray6 of 301Not in the top three

Checkmarx SCA6 of 300Not 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 OWASP Dependency-Track. 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 25 of the 30 answers that named OWASP Dependency-Track and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appsecsanta.com13

endorlabs.com12

aikido.dev10

guideflow.com10

ox.security9

safeguard.sh9

raven.io8

dupple.com7

github.com7

toolradar.com7

Ninety-two of the ninety-two domain citations in answers naming OWASP Dependency-Track came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools-05b7a12

appsecsanta.com/sca-tools/open-source-sca-tools11

ox.security/blog/software-composition-analysis-and-sca-tools9

aikido.dev/blog/top-open-source-dependency-scanners8

appsecsanta.com/sca-tools8

dupple.com/learn/best-software-composition-analysis-tools7

raven.io/blog/best-software-composition-analysis-tools7

toolradar.com/blog/best-software-composition-analysis-tools7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as OWASP Dependency-Track

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

Dependency-Track 3Dependency‑Track 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 OWASP Dependency-Track'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-Track, 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 owasp.org 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.