| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endpoint protection | IT operations and endpoint | 17% | 2 of 86 | 3% | 34 | accepted challenger | ▼−1Since September 2026: 20% → 19%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI security platforms | Security operations | 4% | 7 of 233 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by SentinelOne Singularity at 11% | |
| Client-side protection | Security operations | 2% | 16 of 120 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by cside at 13% | |
| Managed detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 30 of 67 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response at 37% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI security | 0% | 4% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 4% now. | New this edition | Rank 7 of 233, unchanged |
| Client-side protection | 0% | 3% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 3% now. | New this edition | Rank 16 of 120, unchanged |
| Endpoint protection | 20% | 19% | ▼−1Since September 2026: 20% → 19%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 of 86, unchanged |
| MDR | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 30 of 67, 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“starting with a pilot of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint ... or Bitdefender GravityZone (if you want simplicity and cost predictability)” Kimi K2 · Endpoint protection · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Bitdefender GravityZone offers the best balance of detection rates, ease of use, and management overhead for most mid-market B2B companies” MiniMax M2.5 · Client-side protection · direct prompt · first choice
“such as ESET, Bitdefender, SentinelOne, and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, which generally balance detection, low latency” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · first choice
“the two most highly recommended solutions are Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Bitdefender GravityZone” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Endpoint protection · paraphrase prompt · first choice
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.
“may not be best for teams needing highly customized reports or fully managed security services” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · soft negative
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 105 answers that named Bitdefender GravityZone and are not a share of its labels.
310 of the 310 domain citations in answers naming Bitdefender GravityZone came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Bitdefender GravityZone's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: bitdefender.com/en-us/business/gravityzone-platform. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Bitdefender GravityZone'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 Bitdefender GravityZone, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Bitdefender GravityZone by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
Bitdefender GravityZone is among the products AI models recommend first in Endpoint protection this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.