Client-side protection · October 2026 Edition
cside vs Source Defense
One of fourteen models named cside first on the direct prompt; one named Source Defense. cside was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Source Defense by eleven and both carry 26 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share13%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%27%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#4A position in a field of 8; printed, not drawn.
Labels2626Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, cside reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.cside vs Reflectiz · cside vs Jscrambler Webpage Integrity · cside vs Feroot PaymentGuard
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 client-side protection page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
csideFirst choices, of fourteen modelsSource Defense
Direct111 against Source Defense
Paraphrase21
Comparative31
Budget-constrained301 against Source Defense
Scale-constrained00
Negative005 against Source Defense
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 October 2026 Edition, cside and Source Defense were named in the same answer thirty-two times, of the 85 answers naming cside and the 69 naming Source Defense. In those answers Source Defense took the first choice five times and cside eight.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where cside and Source Defense 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 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| 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 | | | | | |
cside Source Defense first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, cside on the left and Source Defense on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where cside and Source Defense stood in it.
cside first, Source Defense not the choice
1 of 14 modelsSource Defense was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashReflectiz, cside alternatives: Cloudflare's Client-Side Security
Source Defense first, cside not the choice
1 of 14 modelscside was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2Source Defense, c/side alternatives: Cloudflare Page Shield, Feroot Security
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Perplexity SonarAkamai Client-Side Protection & Compliance alternatives: Jscrambler Webpage Integrity, cside
Grok 4.1 FastImperva Client-Side Protection alternatives: Akamai Client-Side Protection, Jscrambler Webpage Integrity, Source Defense
Muse Glimmer 30BBitdefender GravityZone Business Security alternatives: Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, Imperva Client-Side Protection, Source Defense
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
GPT-5.4 miniF5 Distributed Cloud Client-Side Defense alternatives: Feroot Security Inspector, Imperva Client-Side Protection
Gemini 3.5 FlashCloudflare Client-Side Security alternatives: Reflectiz, Report URI, c/side
Mistral SmallAkamai Client-Side Protection & Compliance, Jscrambler Webpage Integrity
Llama 4 MaverickAkamai Client-Side Protection & Compliance, Jscrambler Client-Side Protection and Compliance Platform
Qwen 3.7 FlashCrowdStrike Falcon alternatives: Akamai Client-Side Protection, Imperva Client-Side Protection, Jscrambler Webpage Integrity, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint, Sophos Intercept X
GLM 4.7 FlashXJscrambler Webpage Integrity alternatives: Akamai Client-Side Protection & Compliance, Cloudflare Page Shield, Imperva Client-Side Protection
MiniMax M2.5Bitdefender GravityZone alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR, SentinelOne Singularity
GPT-6 LunaSophos MDR Complete alternatives: Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender for Cloud
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
cside leads by twelve points.
cside14%#1 of 9Source Defense2%#8 of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
What the models said about cside
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“cside is cited in current round-ups as a platform that does server-side payload analysis + client-side Script Method and Scan Method with 100% real-user session coverage.” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“cside (Highly ranked in comparisons): Server-side payload analysis + client-side runtime monitoring of 100% real sessions.” Grok 4.1 Fast · comparative prompt · first choice
“the best fit is usually cside, because it has a public starting price of $99/month and also offers a free tier” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Source Defense
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“solutions from vendors like JScrambler, Reflectiz, Source Defense, and Human Security ... often fail to block the majority of sophisticated e-skimming attacks” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Popular vendors include Human Security, SourceDefense, JScrambler, and Reflectiz. ... JS agents detect behavior after a script has already executed.” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“you do not need to pay $15,000+ per year for enterprise-grade solutions (like Akamai, Jscrambler, or Source Defense)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Choose In-Browser Runtime Agents (Source Defense / HUMAN) if you operate a high-volume checkout or login page and want *active prevention*” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with c/side (free tier) or Source Defense Essentials ($98/month)” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
“I'd start with Source Defense's PCI Compliance product for a mid-sized B2B company” GPT-6 Luna · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
cside vs Reflectizcside vs Jscrambler Webpage Integritycside vs Feroot PaymentGuardcside vs Imperva Client-Side ProtectionReflectiz vs Source DefenseJscrambler Webpage Integrity vs Source DefenseSource Defense vs Feroot PaymentGuardSource Defense vs Imperva Client-Side ProtectionAll fifteen head-to-head pages and the full client-side protection 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.