Use peer reviews to build a long list, an analyst report to learn how a market is framed, and a short trial on your own code to decide. Each source answers a different question, and only the trial shows how a tool behaves on your repositories, your languages and your team.
What peer reviews can tell you
G2 states plainly that reviews do not constitute expert opinions based on objective criteria. They reflect users' subjective experiences, and G2 has not verified reviewers' professional qualifications.
That is a fair description of their value. Reviews are good at surfacing recurring themes such as onboarding pain, support quality and integration gaps. They are weak at telling you whether a scanner finds what it should. Read them for patterns, not for verdicts.
What an analyst report can tell you
Forrester's published methodology describes how a Wave is built. The analyst defines scope, drafts inclusion and evaluation criteria, and collects data through vendor questionnaires, demos and reference customers. Criteria are weighted, and scores combine the gathered data with the analyst's market expertise. The process takes roughly 18 weeks from kickoff.
Forrester says the criteria are meant to be differentiating rather than exhaustive. That wording is worth keeping in mind. A report ranks vendors against the criteria chosen for that report, not against your requirements. If you need a capability the criteria did not weigh, the chart will not show it.
What only a trial can tell you
The OpenSSF guide to evaluating open source software recommends practical testing: adding a dependency as a test, preferably in an isolated environment, and checking for behavior such as data exfiltration. The same attitude applies to a commercial tool. Run it against real code and watch what happens.
A trial can answer questions no report can:
- How many findings does it raise on a repository you know well?
- How many of those findings are real, and how many are noise?
- How long until a developer can act on a result?
- What does it send off your machine?
A sensible order
- Write down five requirements from your own environment before reading anything.
- Read reviews for a week, looking only for themes related to those five.
- Skim one analyst report for vocabulary and market shape.
- Cut to three candidates.
- Run each on the same two repositories and score them against your five requirements.
This order keeps outside opinion in its place. It feeds your shortlist, and your own results make the decision. See evaluating a security scanner in three weeks for a longer plan.
Where Safeguard fits
Safeguard offers SBOM and dependency scanning, reachability analysis, and policies and gates. The free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan lets you see output on your own code before talking to anyone.
Quick check
Should I skip reviews and reports entirely?
No. They are cheap ways to build a shortlist. Just do not let either one make the final call.
Why not trust an analyst chart for fit?
Because the chart reflects criteria chosen for that report. Your requirements may differ from them.
Sources
- G2 research scoring methodologies
- Forrester Wave methodology
- OpenSSF concise guide for evaluating open source software
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
