Ten of fourteen models named Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform first on the direct prompt; zero named Veracode Security Labs. Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Veracode Security Labs by twelve and Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform carries 63 labels and Veracode Security Labs 23, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the secure code training page.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform and Veracode Security Labs were named in the same answer sixty-seven times, of the 194 answers naming Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform and the 69 naming Veracode Security Labs. In those answers Veracode Security Labs took the first choice three times and Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform thirty-eight.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | ||||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.20 | ||||||
| Mistral Small | ||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | ||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | ||||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | ||||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid premium platforms such as Secure Code Warrior or SecureFlag unless their stronger language coverage, labs, and analytics justify the higher cost” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“What to Avoid ... Enterprise-focused; typically high per-user cost and requires annual contracts.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Be most cautious about Secure Code Warrior given its consistently poor developer reception” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Secure Code Warrior, now the developer training engine behind Black Duck Developer Security Training, is a strong core fit for mid-size B2B” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Choose Secure Code Warrior if you want high engagement, gamification, skills assessments, and broad rollout to many developers.” GPT-5.4 mini · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you want the biggest hands-on challenge library and enterprise benchmarking, Secure Code Warrior is the consensus #1.” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Paid enterprise platforms like Secure Code Warrior, Veracode Security Labs, or Immersive Labs are highly rated for depth and integration but often start at thousands of dollars annually” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“Veracode Security Labs, Synopsys, and Checkmarx Codebashing, which are considered to be high-cost and high-friction” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“they can feel more bolted-on than dedicated platforms like SCW, and pricing may be higher for mid-market” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · soft negative
“SANS and Veracode are both excellent choices” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Best For: Teams already standardized on Veracode scanning who want training that aligns with their existing tooling.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for: Existing Veracode customers wanting training that complements their scanning and remediation workflows.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.