Index › Vendors › SpotBugs/FindSecBugs · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

SpotBugs/FindSecBugs

2Judge labels

0First 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. SpotBugs/FindSecBugs was named 2 times in SAST, where Semgrep led with 47%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market24 of 47

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In sast · 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 SpotBugs/FindSecBugs 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
Static application security testing	Developer platform	0%	24 of 47	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Semgrep at 47%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SpotBugs/FindSecBugs 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 SpotBugs/FindSecBugs 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	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	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

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

“Java: SpotBugs + FindSecBugs” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SAST · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as SpotBugs/FindSecBugs, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SpotBugs/FindSecBugs was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Semgrep2 of 21Not in the top three

Aikido Security2 of 20Not in the top three

SonarQube2 of 20Not in the top three

gosec2 of 20Not in the top three

Bandit1 of 20Not in the top three

Brakeman1 of 20Not in the top three

Checkmarx One1 of 20Not in the top three

CodeQL1 of 20Not in the top three

Corgea1 of 20Not in the top three

Cycode1 of 20Not 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 SpotBugs/FindSecBugs. 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 1 of the 2 answers that named SpotBugs/FindSecBugs and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appsecsanta.com1

arxiv.org1

checkmarx.com1

corgea.com1

expertinsights.com1

jit.io1

opsera.ai1

ox.security1

pixee.ai1

secure-pipelines.com1

No domain is on file for SpotBugs/FindSecBugs, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

arxiv.org/pdf/2403.092191

appsecsanta.com/sast-tools1

checkmarx.com/learn/sast/open-source-vs-premium-sast-tools1

corgea.com/learn/best-sast-tools1

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-static-application-security-testing-sast-t1

jit.io/resources/appsec-tools/best-sast-tools1

opsera.ai/blog/sast-tools1

ox.security/blog/static-application-security-sast-tools1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as SpotBugs/FindSecBugs

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

SpotBugs + FindSecBugs 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 SpotBugs/FindSecBugs'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 SpotBugs/FindSecBugs, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.