Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Public Git Hosting Services

Platforms that provide cloud-hosted Git repositories, collaboration, issue tracking, and CI/CD integrations for open-source and public projects.

Brands tracked: 32
Brands analyzed: 32
Last updated: 2026-04-22
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 253
Total responses: 1,287
Top Brand Overall?
GitHub
100/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
GitHub
100

Highest score on the LBA metric in this industry.

Authority Leader?
GitHub
100

Highest score on the Authority metric in this industry.

TOM Leader?
GitHub
100

Highest score on the TOM metric in this industry.

GitHub is the default answer in AI responses for Public Git Hosting Services

GitHub and GitLab together dominate AI responses for Public Git Hosting Services. Both brands consistently surface unprompted, with the model treating them as the default answers for most category queries. Brands outside the top two face a structural disadvantage: users are usually given these two before the model even considers alternatives.

Brand Leaderboard All 32 Public Git Hosting Services brands ranked

Ranked by overall AI Visibility Score (smoothed geometric mean of LBA, Authority, and TOM with an LBA-based floor on Authority and TOM, see methodology). Click any brand for the full report.

# Brand LBA Authority TOM Overall
1
GitHub
github.com
 100
100
100
100
2
GitLab
gitlab.com
 90
100
97
96
3
Atlassian
atlassian.com
 86
45
75
66
4
Bitbucket
bitbucket.org
 76
45
75
64
5
Codeberg
codeberg.org
 69
39
55
53
6
SourceHut
sr.ht
 71
18
30
35
7
SourceForge
sourceforge.net
 62
6
25
23
8
Vercel
vercel.com
 93
9
9
22
9
Gitea
gitea.com
 80
8
8
19
10
Gitee
gitee.com
 59
6
6
15
11
Launchpad
launchpad.net
 61
6
7
15
12
Beanstalk
beanstalkapp.com
 57
6
6
14
13
RhodeCode
rhodecode.com
 57
6
6
14
14
Assembla
assembla.com
 50
5
5
13
15
Pagure
pagure.io
 52
5
5
13
16
Disroot
disroot.org
 41
4
4
11
17
Framagit
framagit.org
 41
4
4
11
18
Radicle
radicle.xyz
 43
4
4
11
19
Coding.net
coding.net
 37
4
4
10
20
Buddy
buddy.works
 35
4
4
9
21
TuxFamily
tuxfamily.org
 34
3
3
9
22
Unfuddle
unfuddle.com
 30
3
3
8
23
Codebase
codebasehq.com
 27
3
3
7
24
Codegiant
codegiant.io
 24
2
2
7
25
repo.or.cz
repo.or.cz
 26
3
3
7
26
GitFlic
gitflic.ru
 22
2
2
6
27
GitCode
gitcode.com
 17
2
2
5
28
Helix TeamHub
perforce.com
 16
2
2
5
29
NotABug
notabug.org
 12
1
1
4
30
OpenDev
opendev.org
 6
1
1
2
31
GitGud
gitgud.io
 0
0
0
0
32
ProjectLocker
projectlocker.com
 0
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 253 shared Public Git Hosting Services prompts. The same prompts, same model, same iterations. So differences in scores reflect actual differences in AI visibility, not differences in measurement.

Overall AI Visibility Score
Smoothed geometric mean of LBA, Authority and TOM. Authority and TOM are floored at LBA × 0.1 before the geometric mean (the same floor used in the per-metric cards above, so brand cards and the composite tell the same story). Formula: composite = ((LBA + 5)(Authority + 5)(TOM + 5))^(1/3) - 5. The floor keeps brands the model clearly recognises but doesn't yet recommend from collapsing to zero, while a single genuinely weak metric still pulls the composite down. Full methodology.
Shared industry prompts
For Authority and TOM, all brands in the industry are scored against the same 253 category prompts (e.g. "best SEO tools for agencies"). This makes brand-to-brand comparisons valid - everyone faces identical inputs. LBA prompts are per-brand because they ask brand-specific questions.
Latent Brand Association (LBA)
5 brand probes + 1 control prompt, each run 5 times in recall mode (no web search). LBA = quality × meta × stability × share × recognition × 100. Read the full LBA methodology →
LLM Authority
50 organic category prompts (discovery, comparison, problem and transactional intents), each run once in recall mode and once in retrieval mode. Score = frequency × log-decayed prominence × intent weight, then 50/50 averaged across the two modes. Read the full Authority methodology →
Top of Mind (TOM)
15 high-volume discovery prompts (sourced from Keywords Everywhere search-volume data), each run 5 times in pure recall mode (no web). Score = frequency × (0.5 + 0.5 × log-prominence), volume-weighted. Read the full TOM methodology →