Every category where a model named Sourcegraph Cody 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
AI coding assistants	Developer platform	0%	15 of 46	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by GitHub Copilot at 67%

Movement

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

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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative14 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative24 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.

“Sourcegraph Cody Enterprise and Tabnine are often highlighted as strong privacy-first options” DeepSeek V4 Flash · AI coding · negative prompt · alternative

“Choose Sourcegraph Cody if your biggest pain is working in a large, complex codebase” Perplexity Sonar · AI coding · direct prompt · alternative

“Best for: Large codebase understanding and enterprise workflows.” Mistral Small · AI coding · comparative 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 Sourcegraph Cody, over the 24 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sourcegraph Cody was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GitHub Copilot24 of 2415Not in the top three

Tabnine20 of 241Not in the top three

Cursor19 of 242Not in the top three

Amazon Q Developer16 of 240Not in the top three

Claude Code12 of 241Not in the top three

Windsurf9 of 241Not in the top three

Augment Code9 of 240Not in the top three

Aider5 of 240Not in the top three

Gemini Code Assist5 of 240Not in the top three

JetBrains AI Assistant4 of 240Not 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 Sourcegraph Cody. 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 19 of the 24 answers that named Sourcegraph Cody and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

augmentcode.com15

axify.io10

dev.to5

gartner.com5

intuitionlabs.ai5

learn.g2.com5

memeburn.com5

resources.rework.com5

sourcegraph.comYour site5

agentic.ai4

Fifty-nine of the sixty-four domain citations in answers naming Sourcegraph Cody came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

axify.io/blog/the-best-ai-coding-assistants-a-full-comparison-of-20-tools10

augmentcode.com/tools/8-top-ai-coding-assistants-and-their-best-use-cases8

augmentcode.com/tools/beyond-github-copilot-5-enterprise-ready-ai-coding-assistants7

augmentcode.com/tools/best-enterprise-ai-code-generators5

gartner.com/reviews/market/ai-code-assistants5

learn.g2.com/best-ai-coding-assistants5

memeburn.com/best-ai-coding-tools5

agentic.ai/best/enterprise-coding-agents4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Sourcegraph Cody

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

Cody (Sourcegraph) 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 Sourcegraph Cody'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 Sourcegraph Cody, 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 sourcegraph.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.