Digital risk protection · October 2026 Edition
BrandShield vs Recorded Future
Zero of fourteen models named BrandShield first on the direct prompt; zero named Recorded Future. BrandShield was named by eight of the fourteen models and Recorded Future by thirteen and BrandShield carries 11 labels and Recorded Future 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share4%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%34%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels1135A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, BrandShield reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.UpGuard BreachSight was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. UpGuard BreachSight vs BrandShield · UpGuard BreachSight vs Recorded Future · ZeroFox vs BrandShield
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 digital risk 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.
BrandShieldFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRecorded Future
Direct003 against Recorded Future
Paraphrase211 against Recorded Future
Comparative02
Budget-constrained004 against Recorded Future
Scale-constrained01
Negative004 against Recorded Future
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where BrandShield and Recorded Future 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 | | | |
BrandShield Recorded Future first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, BrandShield on the left and Recorded Future on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where BrandShield and Recorded Future stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Mistral SmallUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Kaduu, Recorded Future
Llama 4 MaverickFortra Brand Protection alternatives: Kaduu, Recorded Future, UpGuard BreachSight
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 alternatives: Corvus Logic, Cyberhaven, Recorded Future, ThreatConnect
MiniMax M2.5UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon, Group-IB Digital Risk Protection, Recorded Future, ZeroFox
GPT-6 LunaCybelAngel Core alternatives: Bolster, BrandShield, ZeroFox
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Cyble Vision alternatives: BlueVoyant Sky, CrowdStrike Falcon, Rapid7 Threat Command, UpGuard BreachSight
GPT-5.4 miniZeroFox alternatives: Bitsight, Proofpoint Digital Risk Protection, SecurityScorecard, UpGuard BreachSight
Gemini 3.5 FlashSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence alternatives: Flare, UpGuard BreachSight, ZeroFox
Perplexity SonarRapid7 Threat Command, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CybelAngel
Grok 4.1 FastUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Rapid7 Threat Command, ZeroFox
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Netcraft, Rapid7, SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence, ZeroFox
Kimi K2UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Fortra Brand Protection, ZeroFox
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Bolster
Muse Glimmer 30BUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CybelAngel
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
BrandShield0%#– of 8Recorded Future0%#8 of 8Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
BrandShield4%#4 of 11Recorded Future4%#5 of 11Enterprise
Recorded Future leads by twelve points.
Recorded Future17%#2 of 9BrandShield4%#– of 9What the models said about BrandShield
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Best overall coverage: BrandShield, for breadth across websites, marketplaces, social, ads, apps, and dark web.” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Top Recommendation: BrandShield” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“AI-powered (ClusterX for threat linking); monitors domains, social, ads, dark web, phishing. Strong for coordinated abuse” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · alternative
What the models said about Recorded Future
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“What to avoid ... Recorded Future: Quote-based, but generally above $10,000/year.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Recorded Future is cited as an example of this trade-off: * Weaknesses: * Limited social media monitoring compared to platforms specializing in brand protection” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“Top-ranked for threat intel and DRP, but complaints include high costs, setup complexity, alert fatigue (less relevant noise), and limited automation” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strong threat intelligence integration, excels at contextualizing exposed data, dark web chatter, and threat actor signals.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you want deep threat intelligence context (understanding who is attacking and why) → Recorded Future” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“From leaders like Recorded Future (strong intel), ZeroFox (takedowns), Rapid7 (SOC integration).” Grok 4.1 Fast · scale prompt · first choice
Also compared
UpGuard BreachSight vs BrandShieldUpGuard BreachSight vs Recorded FutureZeroFox vs BrandShieldZeroFox vs Recorded FutureSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence vs BrandShieldSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence vs Recorded FutureBrandShield vs FlareBrandShield vs Rapid7 Threat CommandBrandShield vs Proofpoint Digital Risk ProtectionRecorded Future vs FlareRecorded Future vs Rapid7 Threat CommandRecorded Future vs Proofpoint Digital Risk ProtectionAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DRP 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.