IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › AdaptiveGRC · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

AdaptiveGRC

7Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative labels

5 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. AdaptiveGRC was named 2 times in GRC, where Vanta led with 14%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business10 of 71

under the label threshold

Mid-market26 of 77

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In grc · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named AdaptiveGRC for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
GRC platforms	Security operations	0%	26 of 77	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Vanta at 14%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AdaptiveGRC yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated AdaptiveGRC across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct4 labels1

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Best For: Small businesses looking for a strong all-rounder... cost-effective alternative to major enterprise suites.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · GRC · budget prompt · alternative

“rated highly in the SMB list, but the result set does not show transparent pricing for it” Perplexity Sonar · GRC · budget prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AdaptiveGRC, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AdaptiveGRC was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Ethicontrol4 of 72Not in the top three

SimpleRisk4 of 72Not in the top three

Sprinto3 of 73Not in the top three

RealCISO3 of 71Not in the top three

Hyperproof3 of 70Not in the top three

Kopexa2 of 70Not in the top three

Drata1 of 71Not in the top three

Archer1 of 70Not in the top three

Enzuzo1 of 70Not in the top three

Eramba1 of 70Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named AdaptiveGRC. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 7 of the 7 answers that named AdaptiveGRC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

brightdefense.com7

spotsaas.com7

orbiqhq.com6

realciso.io5

reddit.com5

sourceforge.net5

bdemerson.com3

complyjet.com3

hackernoon.com3

thedigitalprojectmanager.com3

Forty-seven of the forty-seven domain citations in answers naming AdaptiveGRC came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

brightdefense.com/resources/grc-tools-for-smbs-and-startups7

spotsaas.com/list/grc-platforms/for-small-business7

orbiqhq.com/compliance-automation/best-grc-software6

realciso.io/grc-platform/for-small-business5

reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1ay5u9v/what_grc_software_is_suitable_in_features_and5

sourceforge.net/software/grc/for-small-business4

bdemerson.com/article/the-best-grc-software-a-practical-evaluation3

complyjet.com/blog/best-grc-software3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AdaptiveGRC's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AdaptiveGRC, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at adaptivegrc.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.