IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Brinqa · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Brinqa

7Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

1Category

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

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Brinqa was named 2 times in Vuln management, 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-market28 of 80

under the label threshold

Enterprise18 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 Brinqa 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%	28 of 80	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 45%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Brinqa 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 Brinqa 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	0	0	0
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	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 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.

“Nucleus and Brinqa solve the problem of "alert fatigue" by acting as central aggregators.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · 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 Brinqa, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Brinqa was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Tenable6 of 74Not in the top three

Orca Security6 of 70Not in the top three

Wiz6 of 70Not in the top three

Qualys5 of 72Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management5 of 70Not in the top three

Nucleus Security4 of 71Not in the top three

CrowdStrike4 of 70Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management3 of 70Not in the top three

Nucleus3 of 70Not in the top three

Snyk3 of 70Not 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 Brinqa. 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 3 of the 7 answers that named Brinqa and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

binarly.io3

expertinsights.com3

orca.security3

gartner.com2

riskwatch.com2

blog.qualys.com1

ciopages.com1

cybervendorguide.com1

darkreading.com1

docs.oracle.com1

Eighteen of the eighteen domain citations in answers naming Brinqa came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

binarly.io/articles/vulnerability-management-tools3

expertinsights.com/security-operations/the-top-vulnerability-management-solutions3

orca.security/resources/blog/best-vulnerability-management-tools3

gartner.com/reviews/market/vulnerability-assessment2

riskwatch.com/vulnerability-management-software2

blog.qualys.com/product-tech/2025/12/16/navigating-change-evolving-your-exposure-managemen1

ciopages.com/buyer-guides/vulnerability-management1

cybervendorguide.com/guides/vulnerability-management1

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Brinqa'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 Brinqa, 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 brinqa.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.