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
GRC platforms	Security operations	2%	11 of 77	11%	19	accepted challenger
Compliance automation	Security operations	0%	18 of 54	18%	11	accepted challenger
Third-party risk management	Security operations	0%	22 of 72	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 53%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct24 labels1

Paraphrase14 labelsNone

Comparative32 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained12 labels2

Negative15 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative105 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 5 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.

“Shortlist 2-3 vendors in the mid-market tier (LogicGate, Hyperproof, AuditBoard, ZenGRC)” Kimi K2 · GRC · scale prompt · first choice

“mid-market tools like StandardFusion, SAI360, or AuditBoard can often streamline assessments and compliance” DeepSeek V4 Flash · TPRM · scale prompt · alternative

“Tier 2: Enterprise GRC with Mid-Market Reach ... AuditBoard, OneTrust, LogicManager, Diligent” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compliance automation · scale prompt · alternative

“Strong internal audit focus, Gartner recognition | Companies prioritizing audit management” GLM 4.7 FlashX · GRC · direct 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.

“Tier 3: Enterprise Suites (e.g., AuditBoard, OneTrust, Archer) ... Extremely expensive ($100k+ annual software licenses), 6–12 month implementation timelines” Gemini 3.5 Flash · GRC · scale prompt · soft negative

“rarely need the 6–12‑month implementations and $50k‑$500k/year price tags of full‑enterprise suites” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Compliance automation · direct prompt · soft negative

“heavy-duty GRCs, though they lack the turn-key automation of Vanta/Drata” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Compliance automation · scale prompt · soft negative

“custom pricing >$100 K for AuditBoard/MetricStream” GLM 4.7 FlashX · GRC · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AuditBoard, over the 105 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vanta76 of 10524Not in the top three

Drata75 of 10516Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management59 of 10512Not in the top three

MetricStream53 of 1058Not in the top three

OneTrust50 of 1053Not in the top three

Hyperproof47 of 1052Not in the top three

Archer42 of 1050Not in the top three

Sprinto40 of 1054Not in the top three

Secureframe40 of 1051Not in the top three

LogicGate32 of 1053Not 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 AuditBoard. 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 86 of the 105 answers that named AuditBoard and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

expertinsights.com50

vanta.com46

orbiqhq.com45

optro.ai29

gartner.com25

enzuzo.com24

metricstream.com22

riskonnect.com22

complyjet.com21

learn.g2.com20

304 of the 304 domain citations in answers naming AuditBoard came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

orbiqhq.com/compliance-automation/best-grc-software31

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

enzuzo.com/blog/best-grc-software23

apono.io/blog/top-10-governance-risk-and-compliance-grc-software-solutions19

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-compliance-automation-tools19

metricstream.com/blog/top-governance-risk-compliance-grc-tools.html19

orbiqhq.com/compliance-automation/compliance-automation-software19

vanta.com/resources/best-grc-software-solutions-for-enterprises18

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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) 5

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.

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 auditboard.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.