IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Arctic Wolf · September 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

Arctic Wolf

14Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

3Categories

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

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Arctic Wolf was named 5 times in Vuln management and 2 other categories, where Rapid7 InsightVM led with 45%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market20 of 80

under the label threshold

Enterprise22 of 83

under the label threshold

In vuln management · 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 Arctic Wolf 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
Vulnerability management platforms	Security operations	0%	20 of 80	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 45%
Endpoint detection and response	Security operations	0%	35 of 54	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Bitdefender GravityZone at 20%
SIEM platforms	Security operations	0%	19 of 49	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Sentinel at 41%

Movement

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

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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Arctic Wolf (Excellent, high-touch "Concierge Security" model for the mid-market).” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SIEM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Choose Arctic Wolf Aurora if you'd rather buy more managed guidance/service” GPT-5.4 mini · Vuln management · direct prompt · alternative

“Best for: Companies that don't want to manage the tool themselves.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Vuln management · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Arctic Wolf (Best for: Managed security service)” Kimi K2 · Vuln management · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Arctic Wolf, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Arctic Wolf was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CrowdStrike Falcon5 of 142Not in the top three

Huntress Managed EDR4 of 141Not in the top three

IBM QRadar4 of 140Not in the top three

Microsoft Sentinel4 of 140Not in the top three

Rapid7 InsightVM3 of 141Not in the top three

Blumira3 of 140Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint3 of 140Not in the top three

Qualys VMDR3 of 140Not in the top three

SentinelOne Singularity3 of 140Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender for Cloud2 of 141Not 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 Arctic Wolf. 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 12 of the 14 answers that named Arctic Wolf and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com5

underdefense.com5

cybervendorguide.com4

decryptiondigest.com4

peerspot.com4

g2.com3

gbhackers.com3

huntress.com3

linkedin.com3

paloaltonetworks.com3

Thirty-seven of the thirty-seven domain citations in answers naming Arctic Wolf came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cybervendorguide.com/guides/vulnerability-management4

scribd.com/document/948462988/Comprehensive-Benchmark-Analysis-of-SIEM-Solutions-2023-20253

siemtune.com/best-siem-tools-20253

underdefense.com/blog/siem-solutions-comparison3

advisori.de/en/blog/siem-vs-xdr-vs-soar-security-tools-comparison-20262

beaglesecurity.com/blog/article/tenable-vs-qualys-vs-rapid7.html2

blogs.fluencysecurity.com/siem-for-smbs2

checkthat.ai/answers/what-is-the-best-vulnerability-management-software2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Arctic Wolf

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

Arctic Wolf Aurora 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 Arctic Wolf'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 Arctic Wolf, 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 arcticwolf.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.