Every category where a model named Socket 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%	17 of 49	11%	9	under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 40%

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained12 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative8 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 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.

“Highly regarded for catching malicious packages before they land, but may have limitations in broader vulnerability coverage.” Mistral Small · SCA · negative prompt · alternative

“Worried about novel supply-chain attacks beyond known CVEs? → Socket” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SCA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose Socket if your primary fear is a malicious dependency compromise” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SCA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Stands out for catching malicious packages before they land” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SCA · budget 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.

“OSS-focused limits; not full SCA for all needs” Grok 4.1 Fast · SCA · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Socket, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Socket was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Snyk Open Source34 of 3518Not in the top three

Trivy32 of 3512Not in the top three

Black Duck16 of 351Not in the top three

FOSSA13 of 350Not in the top three

OWASP Dependency-Check13 of 350Not in the top three

Endor Labs12 of 350Not in the top three

Semgrep12 of 350Not in the top three

Mend.io11 of 350Not in the top three

Semgrep Supply Chain11 of 350Not in the top three

Sonatype Lifecycle10 of 351Not 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 Socket. 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 33 of the 35 answers that named Socket and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

endorlabs.com32

dupple.com30

toolradar.com24

guideflow.com20

expertinsights.com15

aikido.dev14

appsecsanta.com13

blog.jetbrains.com11

safeguard.sh11

cycode.com10

180 of the 180 domain citations in answers naming Socket came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

dupple.com/learn/best-software-composition-analysis-tools30

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools-05b7a28

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools24

toolradar.com/blog/best-software-composition-analysis-tools23

guideflow.com/blog/software-composition-analysis-tools20

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-software-composition-analysis-tools15

aikido.dev/blog/top-software-composition-analysis-sca-tools11

blog.jetbrains.com/qodana/2025/09/best-software-composition-analysis-tools11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Socket

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

Socket (free tier) 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 Socket'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 Socket, 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 socket.dev 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.