IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Syft · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Syft

14Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Syft was named 7 times in SCA and 1 other category, where Trivy led with 40%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business19 of 50

under the label threshold

Mid-market21 of 49

under the label threshold

Enterprise19 of 49

under the label threshold

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 Syft 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%	21 of 49	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 40%
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	41 of 78	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Aqua Security at 18%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Syft 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 Syft 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	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	2
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 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.

“utilize their modern stateless CLI tools, Syft (for SBOM generation) and Grype (for vulnerability scanning)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Container security · negative prompt · alternative

“Pairs well with Syft (SBOM generator) for complete supply chain visibility” Kimi K2 · SCA · budget prompt · alternative

“If you need a pure SBOM generator first, then feed into any scanner.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · SCA · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Pairs with Syft for SBOM generation” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SCA · 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 Syft, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Syft was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Grype14 of 140Not in the top three

Trivy13 of 148Not in the top three

OWASP Dependency-Check10 of 141Not in the top three

OSV-Scanner9 of 140Not in the top three

Snyk Open Source7 of 142Not in the top three

OWASP Dependency-Track4 of 142Not in the top three

Socket3 of 140Not in the top three

Black Duck2 of 140Not in the top three

Endor Labs2 of 140Not in the top three

FOSSA2 of 140Not 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 Syft. 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 12 of the 14 answers that named Syft and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

appsecsanta.com12

aikido.dev9

cve.optibot.re9

safeguard.sh9

endorlabs.com8

guideflow.com8

dupple.com4

ox.security4

tomodahinata.com4

businessabc.net3

Seventy of the seventy domain citations in answers naming Syft came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

appsecsanta.com/sca-tools/open-source-sca-tools12

appsecsanta.com/sca-tools10

cve.optibot.re/blog/owasp-dependency-check-trivy-grype-snyk-20269

aikido.dev/blog/top-open-source-dependency-scanners7

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools-05b7a7

safeguard.sh/resources/blog/open-source-vulnerability-management-tools-compared7

endorlabs.com/learn/best-sca-tools5

dupple.com/learn/best-software-composition-analysis-tools4

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Syft'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 Syft, 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 syft.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.