The highest Proven Scores in Developer tools are GitHub for Startups (79/100, Established), Algolia (72/100, Established) and Replit (69/100, Established). They are ranked on the Proven Trust Index using Proven marketplaces, Member redemption clicks, Client quality, Operating tenure, Market standing, Connected relationships and Connected data. Inputs without data are left out and the score is scaled to 100. Vendors cannot pay to change a score.
| Rank | Name | Proven Score | Band | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GitHub for Startups | 79 | Established | Stage: Other · Team size: 6,900 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 2 | Algolia | 72 | Established | Stage: Merger / Acquisition · Team size: 760 employees · Region: Palo Alto, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 3 | Replit | 69 | Established | Stage: Series D · Team size: 730 employees · Region: Foster City, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 4 | LlamaIndex | 59 | Established | Stage: Series A · Team size: 110 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 5 | CircleCI | 59 | Established | Stage: Series F · Team size: 360 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 6 | Alchemy | 55 | Established | Stage: Merger / Acquisition · Team size: 370 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 7 | LaunchDarkly | 53 | Established | Stage: Series D · Team size: 610 employees · Region: Oakland, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 8 | Kong | 52 | Established | Stage: Series E · Team size: 1,100 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 9 | Daytona | 51 | Established | Stage: Series B · Team size: 78 employees · Region: New York, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 10 | Heroic Labs | 50 | Established | Stage: Seed · Team size: 24 employees · Region: United Kingdom · Use case: Developer tools |
| 11 | Tonic.ai | 49 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 90 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 12 | Sourcegraph | 49 | Emerging | Stage: Series D · Team size: 150 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 13 | Temporal Technologies | 48 | Emerging | Stage: Series E · Team size: 530 employees · Region: Bellevue, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 14 | Hasura | 48 | Emerging | Stage: Series C · Team size: 6 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 15 | MathWorks (MATLAB and Simulink) | 47 | Emerging | Team size: 6,500 employees · Region: Natick, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 16 | Merge | 45 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 160 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 17 | Lilt | 44 | Emerging. Provisional score | Stage: Series C · Team size: 510 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 18 | Perforce Software | 44 | Emerging | Stage: Venture (Round not Specified) · Team size: 1,800 employees · Region: Minneapolis, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 19 | Unity | 44 | Emerging | Team size: 4,500 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 20 | Jellyfish | 43 | Emerging | Stage: Series C · Team size: 230 employees · Region: Boston, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 21 | Unreal Engine | 42 | Emerging | Team size: 320 employees · Region: Cary, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 22 | Swarmia | 41 | Emerging | Stage: Series A · Team size: 61 employees · Region: New York, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 23 | E2B | 41 | Emerging | Stage: Series A · Team size: 53 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 24 | QA Wolf | 40 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 200 employees · Region: Seattle, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 25 | Mintlify | 40 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 75 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 26 | Graphite | 40 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 80 employees · Region: New York, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 27 | Ascend.io | 39 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 20 employees · Region: Palo Alto, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 28 | Adaline | 39 | Emerging | Team size: 15 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 29 | Pragma | 39 | Emerging | Stage: Venture (Round not Specified) · Team size: 60 employees · Region: Los Angeles, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 30 | Onymos | 39 | Emerging | Stage: Series A · Team size: 25 employees · Region: Palo Alto, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 31 | AccelByte | 39 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 450 employees · Region: Bellevue, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 32 | Clerk | 38 | Emerging | Stage: Series C · Team size: 210 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 33 | Ory | 38 | Emerging | Stage: Merger / Acquisition · Team size: 53 employees · Region: Scottsdale, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 34 | Lokalise | 37 | Emerging | Stage: Venture (Round not Specified) · Team size: 230 employees · Region: Camden, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 35 | Smartcar | 37 | Emerging | Stage: Merger / Acquisition · Team size: 130 employees · Region: Mountain View, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 36 | Quicknode | 35 | Emerging | Stage: Series B · Team size: 110 employees · Region: Miami, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 37 | CodeRabbit | 35 | Emerging | Stage: Series C · Team size: 310 employees · Region: San Francisco, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 38 | Pulumi | 34 | Emerging | Stage: Series C · Team size: 130 employees · Region: Seattle, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 39 | PropelAuth | 33 | Emerging | Stage: Seed · Team size: 7 employees · Region: Redwood City, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 40 | LangChain | 29 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 41 | Waldo | 22 | Emerging | Use case: Developer tools |
| 42 | Incredibuild | 20 | Emerging. Provisional score | Stage: Series B · Team size: 120 employees · Region: Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel · Use case: Developer tools |
| 43 | Snapser | 16 | Emerging. Provisional score | Stage: Seed · Team size: 7 employees · Region: Foster City, United States · Use case: Developer tools |
| 44 | Emergent | 14 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 45 | Bright Data | 12 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 46 | Jam | 11 | Emerging | Stage: Series A · Team size: 16 employees · Region: Brisbane, Australia · Use case: Developer tools |
| 47 | Massive | 10 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 48 | Composio | 8 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 49 | Sui Foundation | 8 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 50 | Superflex ⚡️ | 8 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 51 | Bolt.new | 7 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 52 | Argonaut | 6 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 53 | Encore | 6 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 54 | Locofy.ai | 6 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 55 | Macroscope | 6 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 56 | Factory | 5 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 57 | General Translation | 5 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 58 | Gitpod | 5 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 59 | QA tech | 5 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 60 | rwx | 5 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
| 61 | The Code Registry | 5 | Emerging. Provisional score | Use case: Developer tools |
Vendors in Developer tools are ordered by Proven Score. Data updated 2026-10-27. Inputs without data are left out and the score is scaled to 100. A score without client quality is marked Provisional score.
| Input | How it is measured | Max |
|---|---|---|
| Proven marketplaces | Investor, bank and government marketplaces on Proven that list the vendor. Log scale, full marks at 150. | 15 |
| Profile views | Member views of the vendor profile across Proven marketplaces. Log scale, full marks at 10,000. Added once the data feed is live. | 15 |
| Member redemption clicks | Clicks by verified members on the vendor's offers. Log scale, full marks at 5,000. | 15 |
| Client quality | Clients the vendor names on its own website, case studies or press releases, weighted by caliber. Full marks at 4. | 20 |
| Operating tenure | Years since founding, from a public record. Full marks at 15 years. | 10 |
| Market standing | Publicly traded or owned by a public company 10. Private company valued $1B+ or established partnership 6. | 10 |
| Connected relationships | Client relationships confirmed by CRM sync or Crossbeam. Log scale, full marks at 500. | 10 |
| Connected data | Crossbeam connected 3, CRM syncing 2. | 5 |
Vendors cannot pay to change a score. Scores can't be bought. About the data.
Source: Proven platform data, public records and vendor websites. Vendors cannot pay to change a score. Scores can't be bought. Data updated 2026-10-27. About the data · Proven