Software composition analysis · November 2026 Edition
GitHub Dependabot vs Mend.io – Mend SCA
Zero of fourteen models named GitHub Dependabot first on the direct prompt; three named Mend.io – Mend SCA. GitHub Dependabot was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Mend.io – Mend SCA by fourteen and GitHub Dependabot carries 25 labels and Mend.io – Mend SCA 41, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share8%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate24%15%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 19; printed, not drawn.
Labels2541A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, GitHub Dependabot reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Snyk Open Source was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Snyk Open Source vs GitHub Dependabot · Snyk Open Source vs Mend.io – Mend SCA · Trivy vs GitHub Dependabot
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 software composition analysis page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
GitHub DependabotFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMend.io – Mend SCA
Direct031 against GitHub Dependabot · 1 against Mend.io – Mend SCA
Paraphrase001 against GitHub Dependabot
Comparative011 against GitHub Dependabot
Budget-constrained40
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against GitHub Dependabot · 4 against Mend.io – Mend SCA
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where GitHub Dependabot and Mend.io – Mend SCA stood in it.
| 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 | | | |
GitHub Dependabot Mend.io – Mend SCA first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, GitHub Dependabot on the left and Mend.io – Mend SCA on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where GitHub Dependabot and Mend.io – Mend SCA stood in it.
Mend.io – Mend SCA first, GitHub Dependabot not the choice
3 of 14 modelsGitHub Dependabot was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Mend.io – Mend SCA alternatives: Aikido Security, Snyk Open Source
Perplexity SonarMend.io – Mend SCA alternatives: Endor Labs, Snyk Open Source
MiniMax M2.5Mend.io – Mend SCA, Snyk Open Source alternatives: Sonatype Lifecycle
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io – Mend SCA, OWASP Dependency-Check, OWASP Dependency-Track, Semgrep
Gemini 3.5 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Semgrep Supply Chain, Socket
Grok 4.20Snyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
DeepSeek V4 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
Qwen 3.7 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Safeguard SCA, Trivy
GLM 4.7 FlashXSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io – Mend SCA
GPT-6 LunaSnyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub Code Security, GitHub Dependabot, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
Muse Glimmer 30BSnyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
Neither was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Mistral SmallSnyk Open Source alternatives: FOSSA, Trivy
Llama 4 MaverickSnyk Open Source alternatives: Endor Labs, FOSSA, Safeguard SCA, Semgrep Supply Chain, Socket
Kimi K2Aikido Security, Snyk Open Source alternatives: FOSSA, GitHub Advanced Security
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.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
GitHub Dependabot leads by four points.
GitHub Dependabot4%#5 of 14Mend.io – Mend SCA0%#12 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
GitHub Dependabot leads by two points.
GitHub Dependabot8%#4 of 19Mend.io – Mend SCA6%#5 of 19Enterprise
The order flips: Mend.io – Mend SCA leads at enterprise.
Mend.io – Mend SCA7%#4 of 14GitHub Dependabot0%#– of 14What the models said about GitHub Dependabot
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“GitHub Dependabot as your entire SCA program: It can be useful for repositories on GitHub, but check the documented ecosystem and file-format coverage” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“May be insufficient as a standalone program for complex SBOM, license, or multi-repository governance” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · soft negative
“Dependabot is convenient if you're all-in on GitHub, but it's more of an updater than a deep scanner.” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Using GitHub and want zero setup effort | GitHub Dependabot | Free, native, automatically creates fix PRs.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Best value for most budget-conscious companies: GitHub Dependabot—if your code is already on GitHub.” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“GitHub Dependabot or Snyk Open Source are the best starting points due to their free tiers” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Mend.io – Mend SCA
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Mend.io: Powerful but historically complex to configure and priced for enterprise” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Use with Caution (For High-Volume Repositories) ... historically, it has struggled with accuracy and performance in very large codebases.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Most mainstream tools (Snyk, Black Duck, Dependabot, Whitesource/Mend, etc.) fall into this category to some degree.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Mend.io or Snyk would be the primary recommendations” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Mend.io stands out as the leading choice for many mid-market organizations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Mend.io (best for automated remediation and proactive SCA)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Snyk Open Source vs GitHub DependabotSnyk Open Source vs Mend.io – Mend SCATrivy vs GitHub DependabotTrivy vs Mend.io – Mend SCAOWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Check vs Mend.io – Mend SCAGitHub Dependabot vs OWASP Dependency-TrackMend.io – Mend SCA vs OWASP Dependency-TrackAll fifteen head-to-head pages and the full SCA standing
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.