Every category where a model named Archer 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%	75 of 77	54%	24	criticized challenger
Third-party risk management	Security operations	0%	72 of 72	50%	16	criticized challenger
Compliance automation	Security operations	0%	54 of 54	80%	5	under 10 labels · led by Drata at 37%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Archer 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 Archer across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	2	1	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	6	7
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	2	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	1	3
Mistral Small	0	3	0	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	8	10
Llama 4 Maverick	0	3	0	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	4	5
Kimi K2	1	0	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	1	3

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

Direct13 labelsNone

Paraphrase10 labelsNone

Comparative38 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained13 labels1

Scale-constrained19 labelsNone

Negative48 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative141 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 3 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.

“Fortune 100 programs needing on-prem options | High configurability, pre-built use-case packages” DeepSeek V4 Flash · GRC · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best For: Organizations needing a highly customizable, modular database-driven platform.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · GRC · comparative prompt · alternative

“Fortune 500 with mature GRC? → MetricStream or Archer” Kimi K2 · GRC · comparative 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.

“Verdict: Avoid these unless you are a massive, highly regulated global enterprise with a dedicated, full-time GRC team” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Caution level: High — for mid-sized companies or anyone without dedicated GRC administrators... Cost overruns” DeepSeek V4 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · hard negative

“avoid these if you are a mid-market or smaller enterprise." ... "bulky," "clunky," "like using Linux"” DeepSeek V4 Flash · GRC · negative prompt · hard negative

“Verdict: Avoid unless you truly have thousands of employees and a dedicated GRC team.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compliance automation · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Archer, over the 141 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Archer was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management91 of 14111Not in the top three

MetricStream88 of 14110Not in the top three

Vanta78 of 14118Not in the top three

Drata69 of 14110Not in the top three

OneTrust51 of 1410Not in the top three

AuditBoard42 of 1412Not in the top three

OneTrust Third-Party Risk Management40 of 1414Not in the top three

SecurityScorecard35 of 1412Not in the top three

Bitsight34 of 1415Not in the top three

LogicGate34 of 1415Not 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 Archer. 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 109 of the 141 answers that named Archer and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

expertinsights.com46

gartner.com43

vanta.com41

riskonnect.com36

orbiqhq.com28

reddit.com28

upguard.com28

complyjet.com25

g2.com22

optro.ai22

319 of the 319 domain citations in answers naming Archer came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-governance-risk-compliance-grc-platforms27

upguard.com/blog/best-third-party-risk-management-software-solutions26

apono.io/blog/top-10-governance-risk-and-compliance-grc-software-solutions21

orbiqhq.com/compliance-automation/best-grc-software21

riskonnect.com/best-grc-software-platforms-202621

bitsight.com/guides/best-third-party-risk-management-platforms-for-enterprises18

enzuzo.com/blog/best-grc-software17

complyjet.com/blog/best-grc-software16

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Archer

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Archer; a claim can dispute any of them.

RSA Archer 11Archer (RSA) 4Archer (formerly RSA Archer) 3Archer (Onit) 1Archer (by RSA Archer) 1Archer IRM 1Archer Integrated Risk Management Platform 1RSA Archer (now Archer IRA) 1

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 Archer'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 Archer, 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 archerirm.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.