GitLab (GTLB) ☆
AI applications & software · Industry Index 7 (rank #172) ·
ⓘ Data freshness
price: as of 2026-10-29 index: as of 2026-10-29 fundamentals: latest filing 2026-09-02 Reports quarterly (10-Q XBRL)
GitLab provides an integrated DevSecOps software-development platform, with AI code assistance and agents delivered through GitLab Duo.
Industry exposure 0.3 (GitLab Duo AI features are a strategic add-on to a broad DevSecOps subscription business.)
Signal
signal: as of 2026-10-13Short (~2 weeks)
- ▼Options positioning— Delayed per-contract options — call premium 18% / put 82% (net skew -0.64), unusualness 39/100. Context: Consumer Price Index in 1 day.[options]
- ▲Price momentum— Technical uptrend across short+medium horizon(s) — vote 0.53, confidence 0.84 from 11 indicator sub-signal(s).[price] · derived internally
- ▼Structural— Industry Index 6.8 (falling -8.5 over window) — structural headwind.[index] · derived internally
Medium (~3 months)
- ▲Growth trend— Revenue 21% YoY (decelerating), net margin contracting.[filing]
- ▲Price momentum— Technical uptrend across short+medium horizon(s) — vote 0.53, confidence 0.84 from 11 indicator sub-signal(s).[price] · derived internally
- ▼Smart money— 0 filer(s) accumulating, 2 trimming in 2026Q2 (value-weighted net -1.00).[holding][holding]
- ▼Structural— Industry Index 6.8 (falling -8.5 over window) — structural headwind.[index] · derived internally
Long (~6 months)
- ▲Growth trend— Revenue 21% YoY (decelerating), net margin contracting.[filing]
- ▲moat— Editorial prior (subjective, NOT backtested): narrow moat / fast_follower / moderate pricing ⇒ wider/leading long-horizon tilt 0.06. Bounded, low-confidence input.[moat: Editorial moat profile — gitlab — narrow moat, fast_follower, moderate pricing (as of 2026-08-05)]
- ▼Structural— Industry Index 6.8 (falling -8.5 over window) — structural headwind.[index] · derived internally
Relationship network
- Anthropic — supplier
- Alphabet — supplier
Key relationships
- Anthropic — supplier · GitLab integrates Anthropic's Claude models to power AI features in GitLab Duo and the Duo Agent Platform. source: ir.gitlab.com
- Alphabet — supplier · GitLab runs its SaaS platform on Google Cloud Platform and discloses reliance on GCP as its infrastructure provider. source: sec.gov
Options positioning
delayed · aggregate: as of 2026-10-29- Call vs put volume: 1,283 calls · 584 puts — tilt +37.4% toward calls
- Vol/OI turnover: 0.09×
- Premium ($ notional proxy): $497456 calls · $112754 puts — tilt +63.0% toward calls
- OTM tilt: +16.8% toward OTM calls
- IV skew (put − call): -19.7%
Delayed, end-of-day, aggregate per contract — not a live tape or trade-level flow. Buy/sell side is INFERRED from where each contract's last print sat in the bid/ask spread, not observed order flow. The company-wide side is withheld unless quoted contracts cover at least a quarter of the day's premium, so it can be blank while individual contracts below show a side. Call/put premium is measured across the chain we capture — the 6 nearest expiries within 45 days, not the full option chain — while the table below lists at most 20 flagged contracts, so summing those rows will not reproduce the percentage.
Recent flags
Why flagged:Personal Income & Outlays (PCE) in 2 days
20 small flags (under $100000 premium) — none large enough to highlight.
Daily options volume vs baseline
latest session: 0.3× its 13-day baseline
Call/put premium
93% calls / 7% puts (by premium)
Price momentum set the tone, but the swarm won’t commit — a positive tilt with weak agreement, so the call is Neutral.
Most voters leaned one way; structural dissented. Directional agreement 0.18.
A clear neutral score; conviction 0.00 reflects how strongly the agents agree. Conviction is confidence, not a probability of the move.
Signal history
Moat
moat: latest change 2026-08-05GitLab sells a single-platform DevSecOps toolchain defended by workflow lock-in rather than intellectual property: a unified data model plus deployment flexibility, including single-tenant "Dedicated for Government with FedRAMP compliance," makes it hard to remove where data residency is contractual. The installed base expands: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, 10,682 Base Customers, 1,456 above $100,000 of ARR, 155 above $1.0 million (up 26%), over 70% of ARR from public sector and enterprise. The filing supplies the counterweight: "limited barriers to entry," Microsoft/GitHub as principal competitor, 16 issued patents. Retention (130 to 123 to 118, the 130 a cap), gross margin (89% to 87%) and a January 2026 AI launch point to compression at the commodity end. No source measures market share, so every share band is "unknown".
Rating: narrow
The FY2026 10-K (year ended 2026-01-31) shows real expansion inside the installed base: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, Base Customers up to 10,682 from 9,893, customers above $100,000 of ARR up to 1,456 from 1,229, and $1.0 million ARR customers "to 155 from 123, an increase of 26%". But the filing concedes "limited barriers to entry" and names "Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub" as principal competitor. Retention decelerates (130% FY2024, 123% FY2025, 118% FY2026), and since DBNR is reported "on a threshold basis of 130%," the FY2024 figure is a cap and the slide is steeper than it looks. Narrow, not wide: expansion must be re-won against a bundled hyperscaler.
Type: switching costs
Stickiness comes from platform embedding, not IP. The 10-K rests differentiation on "our single platform with a unified data model," on "Consolidation of multiple tools into a single platform," and on deployment inside the customer's own perimeter for regulated buyers. Replacement means re-integrating a toolchain and re-certifying compliance. IP is the wrong label: only "16 issued patents and 25 pending patent applications," plus open-source licenses granting "broad permissions to use, copy, modify, and redistribute." The no-lock-in claim is the filing's own characterisation, footnoted to a Forrester study "commissioned by GitLab."
Leadership: fast follower
The 10-K positions GitLab against a leader rather than as one: "Our principal competitor is Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub." Competition reads from the challenger side, differentiating "from GitHub through flexible deployment options that work within enterprise security and compliance requirements, LLM neutrality with self-hosted gateway support" and an open core model. On AI it follows: Duo Agent Platform went "Generally available in January 2026," the last month of the fiscal year. What keeps it a follower rather than behind is cadence, "a new version of our software every month for 172 months in a row," plus a regulated-deployment franchise a SaaS-first rival does not cover.
Pricing power: moderate
FY2026 gross margin was 87% against 89%, with cost of revenue up $35.6 million "primarily due to an increase of $18.4 million in third party hosting costs for SaaS and cloud usage," and management expects SaaS and Duo mix to bring costs that "may adversely impact our gross margins." Strain is explicit: GitLab "may be required to reduce our prices," competitors "may offer their products and services at a lower price or for free," and it "implemented user limits on our free SaaS product." Power retained: Premium lists at $29 per user/month billed annually, and seats bundle $12 and $24 of GitLab Credits. But "A majority of our subscriptions are on a one-year period."
Curated moat judgment grounded in the cited source. source: sec.gov
Value-chain position
Layer: AI applications & software
GitLab sits at the software-tooling layer, not compute or models. It consumes third-party LLM capacity — marketing "LLM neutrality and support for self-hosted AI gateways, including air-gapped environments" — so it captures no model-layer economics and bears inference as COGS, visible in the $18.4 million rise in hosting costs. Its distinctive position is the regulated perimeter.
Derived from this company's mapped supply-chain edges and its industry layer.
Signal contribution editorial prior
The moat prior voted +0.06 on the long (~6-month) horizon at weight 0.20 — the swarm call there is neutral (score -0.24, conviction 14).
Editorial prior — subjective, not backtested. It is bounded (±0.6), low-confidence, and never votes on short/medium. See exactly how it voted →
Product lineup
Products & services with an editorial market-share band and technical barrier band — qualitative judgments tied to a cited basis, never invented figures.
| Product | Market share | Technical barrier |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise Agile Planning add-on · Agile portfolio and project planning Upsell module. The 10-K states: "Enterprise Agile Planning Add-On available to Ultimate customers." The live pricing page lists "Enterprise Agile Planning Seats" as a paid add-on under Ultimate only. The filing also identifies Enterprise Agile Planning as one of the core use cases absorbing the majority of development spend. | Unknown No source discloses any share, revenue, or attach rate for this add-on. The only sourceable facts are that the add-on exists and is gated to Ultimate. | Low A planning module competing directly against entrenched incumbents in a category the filing explicitly flags as contested, with Atlassian named among competitors. Its pull is bundle convenience for existing Ultimate customers rather than any disclosed structural advantage; no patent, data, or certification barrier is claimed for it. |
| GitLab Dedicated (including Dedicated for Government) · Single-tenant managed SaaS for regulated industries Verbatim from the 10-K: "Dedicated: Fully managed by GitLab with data isolation, residency, and protection. Includes Dedicated for Government with FedRAMP compliance. Ideal for enterprises and organizations in highly regulated industries requiring data isolation, specific geographic requirements, or government compliance." | Unknown No share data is disclosed. The filing gives no revenue split, customer count, or share figure for Dedicated specifically. | Deep The barrier is regulatory rather than technical. FedRAMP authorization and contractual data-residency and isolation commitments are certification assets a customer cannot casually re-procure, and the filing markets Dedicated squarely at customers whose "compliance, security, or infrastructure requirements" foreclose multi-tenant SaaS. This is the narrowest but most defensible pocket of the moat. |
| GitLab DevSecOps Platform (Free, Premium, and Ultimate tiers) · DevSecOps platform / software delivery Core seat-based platform spanning source code management, CI/CD, security and compliance. The 10-K describes three tiers: Free, Premium for "scaling organizations," and Ultimate, which "includes all Premium capabilities, plus advanced application and supply chain security, centralized compliance reporting, and policy controls." | Unknown No market-share measurement exists in the 10-K: no reference to Gartner, IDC, any share percentage, or any "leader in" claim. The only positional statements are self-descriptive ("GitLab is the only intelligent orchestration platform for DevSecOps built on an open-core business model") alongside a competitor list naming Microsoft/GitHub as principal competitor plus "Atlassian, JFrog, and Harness." Being a named participant in a competitive set does not establish a rank. | Moderate Stickiness comes from "our single platform with a unified data model" and "Consolidation of multiple tools into a single platform," corroborated by 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention and $100,000+ ARR customers rising to 1,456. It stops short of deep because the filing itself admits that "The markets for our services are highly competitive, with limited barriers to entry," and because GitLab holds only 16 issued patents. |
| GitLab Duo Agent Platform (with GitLab Credits) · Agentic AI for the software lifecycle AI agent orchestration layer. "Generally available in January 2026, GitLab Duo Agent Platform combines conversational AI assistance, purpose-built agents for specialized tasks, workflow automation, and enterprise controls." Monetized on a usage axis: "Usage-based pricing (GitLab Credits) applies specifically to GitLab Duo Agent Platform capabilities." | Unknown No share data exists, and none could exist meaningfully — the product reached general availability in January 2026, the final month of the fiscal year, so the filing reports no Duo-specific revenue, customer count, or share. | Low Newly general-available in a crowded AI coding-assistant field where the principal competitor bundles. The filing's own differentiator is neutrality rather than capability — "LLM neutrality and support for self-hosted AI gateways, including air-gapped environments" — which is a deployment advantage, not a model or data advantage. It is also margin-dilutive by the company's own forward guidance that "deploying AI systems involves high computing costs." |
| Self-Managed GitLab (on-premises and hybrid cloud deployment) · Self-hosted enterprise software Customer-operated GitLab instance. The 10-K describes it as "self-managed (on-premise or hybrid cloud)" giving customers "full control over their data, workflows, and security policies." Self-managed subscription plus license revenue is the larger revenue line: $568.5M self-managed subscription and $68.9M self-managed license against $296.2M SaaS in FY2026. | Unknown No share measurement exists in the filing or any consulted source. GitLab discloses revenue by delivery model but never a share of the self-hosted DevSecOps market. | Deep Running inside the customer's own perimeter means replacement requires re-platforming infrastructure the customer operates and re-certifying compliance. The filing ties this to regulated demand: organizations in highly regulated sectors "value our built-in security, compliance controls, and flexible deployment options that meet strict data residency and governance requirements," and more than 70% of ARR came from public sector and enterprise customers in FY2026. |
2 owns · 2 partial of 5 — a pattern, not a score
GitLab owns the delivery workflow and the customer relationship, rents the model, and is barred by its own policy from compounding the one data asset that would otherwise be its moat. It is the system of record for the software lifecycle, agents run inside it, and GitLab Credits meter that agent activity, while the models are entirely third-party and customer tenant data is walled off from training. Evaluation is genuinely first-party but leans on an external tracking platform and an industry benchmark for scoring.
| Customer relationship | owns | GitLab sells "through a direct sales organization, a self-service web purchasing experience, and a global partner ecosystem", with partners "designed to complement direct sales efforts." Free tiers and trials feed the funnel, and the installed base is named: 1,456 customers at $100k+ ARR, up from 1,229, net retention of 118%, and "no individual customers whose revenue represented more than 10% of total revenue" in FY2026, FY2025 or FY2024. Customer counts track each end customer separately even when sold through a channel. The counterweight is intermediation: at January 31, 2026 two channel partners held 17% and 13% of accounts receivable, in a book where over 70% of ARR is public sector and enterprise, and the filing carries a channel-partner risk factor. source: sec.gov |
|---|---|---|
| Proprietary data | partial | GitLab has privileged inference-time access to an unusually complete software-lifecycle corpus, but it is customer tenant data and GitLab has foreclosed compounding it: "GitLab does not train generative AI models" and "For GitLab Duo requests, GitLab has a zero data retention policy with Fireworks AI." Some exhaust is kept: Duo Chat and Duo Agent Platform "retain chat and workflow history", "GitLab retains trace data" under expanded logging, telemetry covers prompt lengths, model, editor and accept/reject counts, and since 18.9.1 an opt-in setting logs "Full prompt and response text" and "Tool calls and their results" — "not for training AI models." Prompt caching and "limited vendor-side data retention" apply to certain Anthropic and OpenAI models. source: docs.gitlab.com |
| Evals | partial | GitLab runs a public, first-party evaluation harness. The Centralized Evaluation Framework "is a command-line interface (CLI) framework designed to provide a centralized solution for evaluating AI features at GitLab", maintained by its AI Model Validation and Research group and covering "GitLab AI features (such as Duo Chat, Code Suggestions, etc.)". Its outputs are performance metrics and comparison reports letting developers "test and validate prompt engineering changes"; that these set per-feature defaults is an inference, as the docs say only "GitLab might update default models to optimize performance." It stays below owns because "CEF relies on LangSmith for evaluation tracking and experiment management" and agentic scoring uses an external benchmark via "one-click SWE-bench evaluations." source: gitlab.com |
| Workflow | owns | GitLab "is a technology company and its primary offering is 'GitLab', an intelligent orchestration platform for DevSecOps delivered as a single application", and the issue, merge request, pipeline and vulnerability record live in its system of record. The Duo Agent Platform, "Generally available in January 2026", puts agents inside that workflow: "teams orchestrate AI agents that execute tasks autonomously across planning, development, security, and deployment. This eliminates the need for manual handoffs between software lifecycle stages." Monetization meters the same surface: "Usage-based pricing (GitLab Credits) applies specifically to GitLab Duo Agent Platform capabilities." Authoring is the limit — code is written in "third-party code editors and integrated development environments, or IDEs." source: sec.gov |
| Domain-specific model | none | Every model behind GitLab Duo is third-party: Anthropic (Claude Sonnet 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Sonnet 3, Haiku 3, Haiku 4.5, several via Google Vertex), Google (Gemini 2.5 Flash Vertex), Mistral Codestral 25.01 and 25.08, and OpenAI — the guidance recommends starting with "Claude Haiku 4.5 or GPT-5.4 Mini." Defaults are Claude Sonnet 4.6 Vertex for code generation and chat, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Vertex for Code Review, and Codestral 25.08 Fireworks for code completion. No GitLab-authored model appears and there is no fine-tuning claim: "GitLab does not train generative AI models." The 10-K books the dependency as a risk — "We rely on third-party vendors for the provision of the AI models which power many of our AI features." GitLab owns routing, per-feature model switching (GA in 18.5) and prompt engineering. source: docs.gitlab.com |
AI adoption depth
moderateGitLab's Duo Agent Platform, generally available since January 2026, finished its first full quarter of consumption at a paid consumption run rate of nearly $20 million, a figure that includes minimum usage commitments made before that launch plus on-demand credits. It attached to four of the quarter's top ten deals and added more net new ARR than Duo Pro and Duo Enterprise combined had in any prior quarter. One disclosed account shows the intensity: a top-ten US bank whose developers averaged 1.5 hours saved per task is in active rollout across hundreds of developers, and the customer's own plan points to an active user base nearly 20 times larger at full deployment. Management assumes no material revenue contribution in fiscal 2027 and frames the year as converting pilots to production. source: s204.q4cdn.com
A paired axis, not a sixth band: it is never counted in the pattern above and the two are never averaged into one score.
Traction evidence
- customer: Customers with $100,000+ ARR grew to 1,456 from 1,229; customers above $1.0M ARR grew to 155 from 123 (+26%); more than 70% of ARR came from public sector and enterprise customers (1,456) 2026-01-31 source: sec.gov
- revenue: Dollar-Based Net Retention Rate of 118% for FY2026, down from 123% in FY2025 and 130% in FY2024 - expansion is decelerating even as Duo Agent Platform reached GA in January 2026 and usage-based GitLab Credits began monetizing agent activity (118%) 2026-01-31 source: sec.gov
- revenue: FY2026 total revenue of $955.2M, up 26% from $759.2M in FY2025, with subscription (self-managed and SaaS) revenue up 28% to $864.7M ($955.2M) 2026-01-31 source: sec.gov
Scouted against the condition: a company that simultaneously owns the customer relationship, the data, the evals, the workflow, and a domain-specific model. Weightless — this profile never affects a signal, and it is not a forecast of returns.
What you're looking at
These charts plot GitLab's reported income statement, cash flow, and balance sheet from its SEC filings through 2026-09-02. Every figure is as-filed XBRL — none of it is an estimate.
Over the reported window, revenue grew 1076% to $955.2M (FY2020→FY2026); gross margin moved 88% → 87%; net income at a loss of $58.6M in FY2026.
Analyst consensus — third-party estimates from Yahoo Finance, as of 2026-10-26. Not SEC filings and not a TradingPilot forecast. source: finance.yahoo.com
| Period | EPS (est.) | Revenue (est.) | YoY |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q/E Oct 2026 | USD 0.20 (USD 0.19–USD 0.22) · 27 | USD 282741150.00 (USD 282000000.00–USD 294607000.00) · 25 | +16% |
| FY 2027 | USD 0.87 (USD 0.83–USD 0.93) · 27 | USD 1.1B (USD 1.1B–USD 1.2B) · 27 | +19% |
Each figure shows the consensus mean, its (low–high) range where available, and · the number of analysts behind that estimate.
Next report ~2026-12-01.
Our model leans Low-confidence · Neutral on the stock over the medium horizon — a market-direction call, not an earnings forecast. See the Signal tab.
Income statement
Cash flow & liquidity
Balance sheet
Filings
- 2026Q1 · filed 2026-09-02 source: sec.gov
- 2026Q3 · filed 2026-09-02 source: sec.gov
- 2025Q3 · filed 2026-09-02 source: sec.gov
- 2025Q4 · filed 2026-09-02 source: sec.gov
- 2026Q2 · filed 2026-06-02 source: sec.gov
Show 48 older filings
- 2025Q2 · filed 2026-06-02 source: sec.gov
- FY2022 · filed 2026-05-01 source: sec.gov
- FY2023 · filed 2026-05-01 source: sec.gov
- FY2024 · filed 2026-05-01 source: sec.gov
- FY2025 · filed 2026-05-01 source: sec.gov
- FY2026 · filed 2026-05-01 source: sec.gov
- FY2025 · filed 2026-03-17 source: sec.gov
- FY2026 · filed 2026-03-17 source: sec.gov
- FY2024 · filed 2026-03-17 source: sec.gov
- 2025Q1 · filed 2025-12-03 source: sec.gov
- 2025Q4 · filed 2025-12-03 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q4 · filed 2025-12-03 source: sec.gov
- 2025Q3 · filed 2025-09-04 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q3 · filed 2025-09-04 source: sec.gov
- 2025Q2 · filed 2025-06-11 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q2 · filed 2025-06-11 source: sec.gov
- FY2023 · filed 2025-03-21 source: sec.gov
- FY2024 · filed 2025-03-21 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q1 · filed 2024-12-06 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q4 · filed 2024-12-06 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q4 · filed 2024-12-06 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q3 · filed 2024-09-04 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q3 · filed 2024-09-04 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q2 · filed 2024-06-04 source: sec.gov
- 2024Q2 · filed 2024-06-04 source: sec.gov
- FY2022 · filed 2024-03-26 source: sec.gov
- FY2023 · filed 2024-03-26 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q4 · filed 2023-12-05 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q1 · filed 2023-12-05 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q4 · filed 2023-12-05 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q3 · filed 2023-09-06 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q3 · filed 2023-09-06 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q2 · filed 2023-06-06 source: sec.gov
- 2023Q2 · filed 2023-06-06 source: sec.gov
- FY2021 · filed 2023-03-30 source: sec.gov
- FY2022 · filed 2023-03-30 source: sec.gov
- 2021Q4 · filed 2022-12-06 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q1 · filed 2022-12-06 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q4 · filed 2022-12-06 source: sec.gov
- 2021Q3 · filed 2022-09-07 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q3 · filed 2022-09-07 source: sec.gov
- 2021Q2 · filed 2022-06-07 source: sec.gov
- 2022Q2 · filed 2022-06-07 source: sec.gov
- FY2020 · filed 2022-04-08 source: sec.gov
- FY2021 · filed 2022-04-08 source: sec.gov
- 2021Q1 · filed 2021-12-07 source: sec.gov
- 2020Q4 · filed 2021-12-07 source: sec.gov
- 2021Q4 · filed 2021-12-07 source: sec.gov
Key ratios vs peers
Comparing against peers…
Institutional holders (13F, 2026Q2)
| Institution | Shares | Value | Δ shares QoQ | % of 13F | % shares out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BlackRock Passive / index | 8,847,331 | $270.1M | 210,271 | 0.0% | 5.35% |
| Alphabet Corporate | 2,724,712 | $83.2M | 0 | 0.1% | 1.65% |
| State Street Passive / index | 2,632,173 | $80.4M | 81,807 | 0.0% | 1.59% |
| ARK Investment Management (Cathie Wood) Guru | 767,998 | $23.4M | -58,887 | 0.2% | 0.46% |
| FMR (Fidelity) Passive / index | 39,728 | $1.2M | 28,306 | 0.0% | 0.02% |
| Renaissance Technologies Guru | 7,600 | $232028 | -735,200 | 0.0% | 0.00% |
TradingPilot-computed columns (% of 13F, % shares out) are derived from as-filed 13F values; only name, shares and value are as-filed.
What a 13F can’t show you
- Delayed 45+ days. Positions are as-of the quarter-end shown, filed up to 45 days later.
- Long-only, US-listed. No shorts, cash, bonds, FX, foreign, or private holdings; listed options are reported at notional and excluded from per-position equity value.
- $100M threshold. Smaller managers never file.
- “% of 13F” is not “% of AUM”. A 13F is a partial book.
- “Sold out” means “no longer reported” — not necessarily sold.
- One CIK can aggregate multiple sub-entities. Confidential treatment can omit positions.
- Passive index filers are not gurus. Their 13F changes are index flows, and they are excluded from TradingPilot’s smart-money signal.
- Quant caveat. A quant filer’s 13F (e.g. Renaissance) is a long-only quarter-end snapshot and does NOT reflect its actual high-turnover, short-horizon strategy.
- Guru pages and holdings never feed a signal (weightless).
No tagged news yet.
Headlines
2026-10-29 Business Wire AI · GitLab Orbit, Now Generally Available, Makes AI Agents More Accurate and Less Expensive to Run
2026-10-27 Yahoo Finance: GTLB · GitLab Inc. (GTLB) Eases AI Disruption Fears After Exceptional Q2 Results, Madison Small Cap Fund Says
2026-10-06 Business Wire AI · GitLab Announces the Foundation for the Governed Software Factory
Impact = company-prominence tier (High/Medium auto-assigned by graph centrality/size; Low only on curated minor events), not a magnitude forecast.
Upcoming
| Date | Type | Event | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-12-02 | earnings | GitLab earnings (estimated) — Date not yet announced — estimated from EDGAR filing cadence (last periodic filing + 91/365 days); confirm via IR. estimated | Medium |
Past
| Date | Event | Impact | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-01 | GitLab earnings confirmed | Medium | EPS beat · +10.0% |
| 2026-06-02 | GitLab earnings confirmed | Medium | EPS beat · -2.8% |
| 2026-05-11 | GitLab results release confirmed | Medium | outcome pending |