Software composition analysis · November 2026 Edition
OWASP Dependency-Check vs GitHub Dependabot
Zero of fourteen models named OWASP Dependency-Check first on the direct prompt; zero named GitHub Dependabot. OWASP Dependency-Check was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and GitHub Dependabot by twelve and OWASP Dependency-Check carries 37 labels and GitHub Dependabot 25, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share10%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate51%24%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#4A position in a field of 19; printed, not drawn.
Labels3725A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, OWASP Dependency-Check 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 OWASP Dependency-Check · Snyk Open Source vs GitHub Dependabot · Trivy vs OWASP Dependency-Check
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.
OWASP Dependency-CheckFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGitHub Dependabot
Direct001 against GitHub Dependabot
Paraphrase105 against OWASP Dependency-Check · 1 against GitHub Dependabot
Comparative004 against OWASP Dependency-Check · 1 against GitHub Dependabot
Budget-constrained441 against OWASP Dependency-Check
Scale-constrained00
Negative009 against OWASP Dependency-Check · 3 against GitHub Dependabot
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.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, OWASP Dependency-Check and GitHub Dependabot were named in the same answer thirty-three times, of the 106 answers naming OWASP Dependency-Check and the 61 naming GitHub Dependabot. In those answers GitHub Dependabot took the first choice five times and OWASP Dependency-Check five.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OWASP Dependency-Check and GitHub Dependabot 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 | | | |
OWASP Dependency-Check GitHub Dependabot first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OWASP Dependency-Check on the left and GitHub Dependabot on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OWASP Dependency-Check and GitHub Dependabot stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 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
GPT-6 LunaSnyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub Code Security, GitHub Dependabot, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
Neither was named
12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Mend.io – Mend SCA alternatives: Aikido Security, Snyk Open Source
Gemini 3.5 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: GitHub Advanced Security, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Semgrep Supply Chain, Socket
Perplexity SonarMend.io – Mend SCA alternatives: Endor Labs, Snyk Open Source
Grok 4.20Snyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
Mistral SmallSnyk Open Source alternatives: FOSSA, Trivy
DeepSeek V4 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
Llama 4 MaverickSnyk Open Source alternatives: Endor Labs, FOSSA, Safeguard SCA, Semgrep Supply Chain, Socket
Qwen 3.7 FlashSnyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Safeguard SCA, Trivy
Kimi K2Aikido Security, Snyk Open Source alternatives: FOSSA, GitHub Advanced Security
GLM 4.7 FlashXSnyk Open Source alternatives: Mend.io – Mend SCA
MiniMax M2.5Mend.io – Mend SCA, Snyk Open Source alternatives: Sonatype Lifecycle
Muse Glimmer 30BSnyk Open Source alternatives: Black Duck, Mend.io – Mend SCA, Sonatype Lifecycle
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
OWASP Dependency-Check leads by fifteen points.
OWASP Dependency-Check19%#3 of 14GitHub Dependabot4%#5 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
OWASP Dependency-Check leads by two points.
OWASP Dependency-Check10%#3 of 19GitHub Dependabot8%#4 of 19Enterprise
OWASP Dependency-Check leads by two points.
OWASP Dependency-Check2%#10 of 14GitHub Dependabot0%#– of 14What the models said about OWASP Dependency-Check
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“generally not recommended for modern pipelines due to high false-positive rates and slow build times” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“OWASP Dependency-Check as your sole scanner: It's an actively maintained project, not one I'd dismiss. But its approach relies in part on matching components to vulnerability records” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“it is commonly used with caution because it is CPE and metadata driven, has historically high false-positive rates, lacks built-in reachability / exploitability prioritization” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“For budget-conscious teams or open-source projects, OWASP Dependency-Check is recommended” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Primary SCA: OWASP Dependency-Check (free, comprehensive scanning)” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest OWASP Dependency-Check as your primary tool” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What 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
Also compared
Snyk Open Source vs OWASP Dependency-CheckSnyk Open Source vs GitHub DependabotTrivy vs OWASP Dependency-CheckTrivy vs GitHub DependabotOWASP Dependency-Check vs Mend.io – Mend SCAOWASP Dependency-Check vs OWASP Dependency-TrackGitHub Dependabot vs Mend.io – Mend SCAGitHub Dependabot 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.