Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 64 → 52 of 58
4 categories · RankedAuditBoard
108Judge labels
6First choices
21Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
4Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
7% in Compliance automation for enterprise buyers
Rank 11 of 75 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
1 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 14% of its 28 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of AuditBoard →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business55 of 60
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market11 of 75
2%28 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise8 of 67
2%23 labels
accepted challenger
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 AuditBoard 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRC platforms | Security operations | 2% | 11 of 75 | 14% | 28 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Compliance automation | Security operations | 0% | 17 of 67 | 33% | 9 | under 10 labels · led by Drata at 34% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Third-party risk management | Security operations | 0% | 73 of 87 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 55% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cyber risk quantification | Security operations | 0% | 40 of 116 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by CyberSaint CyberStrong at 25% |
Movement
Since September 2026, AuditBoard held within the floor in all four categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · GRC · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 11 → 10 of 69
Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 8 of 65
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRC | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 11 of 75, unchanged |
| Compliance automation | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 18 → 17 of 67 |
| TPRM | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 22 → 73 of 87 |
| Cyber risk quant | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 40 of 116, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated AuditBoard across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated AuditBoard across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 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
Direct15 labels4
Paraphrase17 labelsNone
Comparative32 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained12 labels2
Scale-constrained13 labelsNone
Negative19 labels4not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative108 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 11 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.
“ZenGRC and AuditBoard are top choices due to their balance of usability, scalability, and feature depth.” Mistral Small · GRC · direct prompt · first choice
“Favor leaders like Optro/AuditBoard (G2 4.6/5, 1,500+ reviews, Fortune 500 trust)” Grok 4.20 · GRC · negative prompt · first choice
“include Vanta, Drata, and AuditBoard. It is also suggested that a compliance automation platform with GRC features may be a better fit for most mid-market buyers than a full enterprise GRC suite.” Llama 4 Maverick · GRC · scale prompt · alternative
“For larger enterprises with complex, multi-framework needs, AuditBoard or OneTrust provide the most comprehensive solutions.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compliance automation · 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.
“Avoid enterprise tools like ServiceNow or AuditBoard (six figures)” Grok 4.20 · GRC · budget prompt · hard negative
“rather than a quote‑only, enterprise‑focused tool (Vanta, Drata, AuditBoard) that may lock you into higher pricing later” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compliance automation · budget prompt · soft negative
“*Examples:* Diligent, AuditBoard (sometimes fits here). ... Often clunkier than Group A” Qwen 3.7 Flash · GRC · scale prompt · soft negative
“good platforms, but typically positioned for larger programs and higher price points” GPT-5.4 mini · GRC · budget prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as AuditBoard, over the 108 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AuditBoard was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as AuditBoard, over the 108 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AuditBoard was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 AuditBoard. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 99 of the 108 answers that named AuditBoard and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
vanta.com55
metricstream.com32
riskwatch.com31
complyjet.com30
orbiqhq.com30
enzuzo.com26
zengrc.com24
sprinto.com23
expertinsights.com21
gartner.com18
290 of the 290 domain citations in answers naming AuditBoard came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
auditboard.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, AuditBoard takes 2% of first choices and Hyperproof takes 19%.ShowHide
Search and answers
auditboard.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, AuditBoard takes 2% of first choices and Hyperproof takes 19%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “grc platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “grc platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 8,100 a month (“auditboard”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 220 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 129 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 38 · 5 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 5,085
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 11 of 75 in GRC
Segment leader
19%
Hyperproof
- First choices
- 6 across its categories
- Named in
- 108 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 99 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on auditboard.com
1,956
subdomains included
Content
1,746
counted in the table below
Documentation
2
Product · Integration
24 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 1,222 | undated | GRC, TPRM | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 292 | undated | GRC, TPRM | ||
| Report or ebook | 84 | 9 | 2026-09-25 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Case study | 79 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 26 | undated | GRC | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 20 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 13 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 8 | undated | GRC | ||
| Podcast or video | 2 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-25Vendor sprawl guide report or ebook
- 2026-09-15Risk in focus 2027 north america report or ebook
- 2026-09-09G sib report report or ebook
- 2026-09-08Bcm reality checklist report or ebook
- 2026-08-25Agentic ai playbook for auditors report or ebook
- 2026-08-05Agentic ai report report or ebook
Events in person
Upcoming
- November 10, 2026 to November 11, 2026#RISK Expo Europe 2026ExCeL London, London, U.K.
Last twelve months
- October 13, 2026 to October 15, 2026in-person experienceSan Diego · took part
- October 13, 2026AI & GRC WorkshopGaylord Pacific Resort, San Diego · took part
- October 13, 2026 to October 15, 2026CRX (Connected Risk Experience)Gaylord Pacific Resort, San Diego · took part
- October 12, 2026 to October 14, 2026Infosec World 2026Gaylord Palms, Orlando
- September 28, 2026 to September 29, 2026Gartner Enterprise Risk, Audit and Compliance Conference — EMEALondon, U.K.
- September 27, 2026 to September 29, 2026MBA Compliance and Risk Management ConferenceGrand Hyatt, Washington
- September 15, 2026 to September 16, 2026Gartner Enterprise Risk, Audit and Compliance Conference — AmericasGrapevine
- August 17, 2026 to August 19, 2026GRC Conference 2026 (ISACA and The IIA)Gaylord Pacific Resort and Convention Center, San Diego
As the event pages on auditboard.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page auditboard.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as AuditBoard
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as AuditBoard; a claim can dispute any of them.
AuditBoard (Optro) 2AuditBoard / Optro 1Optro/AuditBoard 1
Follow AuditBoard
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
AuditBoard is its own company.ShowHide
The company
AuditBoard is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI-Powered GRC Software
- For
- enterprises
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type IISOC 1 Type IICCPAGDPRHECVATCSAHIPAAISO 27001
- Customers named
- PetSmartLennar HomesMarmon HoldingsPopulation Services InternationalEdgewellNVIDIACiscoUber
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting
What AuditBoard's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: auditboard.com, trust.auditboard.com. A claimed page can correct any of 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 AuditBoard'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 AuditBoard, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for AuditBoard by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where AuditBoard is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name AuditBoard, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.