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 8 → 15 of 62
2 categories · Named, not rankedBunkerWeb
6Judge labels
1First choices
0Negative labels
4 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
4 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. BunkerWeb was named 4 times in WAF and 1 other category, where Cloudflare WAF led with 69%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business16 of 75
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market8 of 82
2%3 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In waf · 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 BunkerWeb 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web application firewalls | Network and edge | 2% | 8 of 82 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare WAF at 69% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Client-side protection | Security operations | 0% | 75 of 120 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by cside at 13% |
Movement
Since September 2026, BunkerWeb held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · WAF · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 16 → 7 of 80
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAF | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 16 → 8 of 82 |
| Client-side protection | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 75 of 120, 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 BunkerWeb 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 BunkerWeb 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained5 labels1
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.
“If you have an in‑house security or DevOps team, BunkerWeb or ModSecurity + CRS are excellent choices.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · WAF · budget prompt · first choice
“Go with SafeLine or BunkerWeb. They are free, powerful, and modern” Gemini 3.5 Flash · WAF · budget 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 BunkerWeb, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BunkerWeb was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as BunkerWeb, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BunkerWeb 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 BunkerWeb. 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 6 of the 6 answers that named BunkerWeb and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
wafplanet.com5
cloudflare.com3
comparitech.com3
indusface.com3
openappsec.io3
radware.com3
bunkerweb.ioYour site2
cyberpress.org2
developers.cloudflare.com2
geekflare.com2
Twenty-six of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming BunkerWeb came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
bunkerweb.io ranks 6 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, BunkerWeb takes 2% of first choices and Cloudflare WAF takes 69%.ShowHide
Search and answers
bunkerweb.io ranks 6 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, BunkerWeb takes 2% of first choices and Cloudflare WAF takes 69%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “web application firewall”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “web application firewalls”
–
not in the top ten
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 8 of 82 in WAF
Segment leader
69%
Cloudflare WAF
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 6 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 6 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 bunkerweb.io
140
subdomains included
Content
4
counted in the table below
Documentation
92
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 1 | undated | WAF | ||
| Comparison | 1 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | undated | |||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page bunkerweb.io 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. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow BunkerWeb
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
BunkerWeb is its own company.ShowHide
The company
BunkerWeb is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- the open-source and next generation web application firewall (WAF)
- For
- SMBs, tech startups, growing IT projects, multi-site organizations, scale-ups, sensitive industries, hobbyists, and organizations with no specific professional needs
- Price stated
- Free; 49€/monthly; 149€/monthly; Starting from 639€/monthly bunkerweb.io
- Starting price
- 49 bunkerweb.io
- Free plan or trial
- Free; Start with a 30 days of free trial bunkerweb.io
- Integrations claimed
- 40 bunkerweb.io · 100 bunkerweb.io/pricing-plan pages disagree
- Certifications
- AGPLv3 free license
- Customers named
- CityBeeFusion Filamentsitik
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What BunkerWeb's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: bunkerweb.io, bunkerweb.io, bunkerweb.io/pricing-plan. 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 BunkerWeb'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 BunkerWeb, 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 BunkerWeb by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where BunkerWeb 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 BunkerWeb, 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.