Every category where a model named Calico 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
Microsegmentation	Network and edge	2%	10 of 94	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by ColorTokens Xshield at 25%
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	21 of 77	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 22%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Calico yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Calico 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	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	2	0	0	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	2
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	1	2

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase5 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained10 labels1

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative5 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative30 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 2 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.

“Prioritize modern, identity/label-based tools (e.g., Calico for K8s, Zero Networks for simplicity)” Grok 4.20 · Microsegmentation · negative prompt · first choice

“Pure K8s/containers? Cilium or Calico (start here—deploy in hours).” Grok 4.20 · Microsegmentation · budget prompt · first choice

“Calico (open‑source) or OPA/Gatekeeper | Industry‑standard workload segmentation, flexible policy as code.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Microsegmentation · budget prompt · alternative

“making it a cost-effective choice for environments using Kubernetes” Mistral Small · Microsegmentation · 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 Calico, over the 30 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Calico was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Kubescape16 of 303Not among the top eight

Trivy15 of 3010Not among the top eight

Falco15 of 303Not among the top eight

Prisma Cloud13 of 301Not among the top eight

Aqua Security12 of 301Not among the top eight

Sysdig Secure11 of 300Not among the top eight

Illumio Segmentation8 of 304Not among the top eight

Snyk Container8 of 300Not among the top eight

Akamai Guardicore Segmentation7 of 300Not among the top eight

VMware NSX7 of 300Not among the top eight

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 Calico. 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 28 of the 30 answers that named Calico and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org21

g2.com15

tigera.ioYour site13

gbhackers.com11

cybersecuritynews.com10

itechguides.com9

peerspot.com9

esecurityplanet.com8

portainer.io8

aikido.dev7

Ninety-eight of the 111 domain citations in answers naming Calico came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/container-security-by-business-size-212

tigera.io/learn/guides/microsegmentation/microsegmentation-software10

gbhackers.com/best-container-security-compared9

esecurityplanet.com/products/container-and-kubernetes-security-vendors8

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-container-security-tools7

cyberpress.org/kubernetes-security-by-business-size-26

cyberpress.org/microsegmentation-tools-by-business-size6

g2.com/categories/microsegmentation/free6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

tigera.io ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Calico takes 2% of first choices and ColorTokens Xshield takes 25%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “microsegmentation solution”

Position for “microsegmentation solutions”

Searches for its name, Google: 135,000 a month (“calico”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 20,802 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 21,429 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 2,423 · 249 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 4,733
Paid Google search: 1 searches its ads show for, about 2 clicks and $8 a month (estimate)

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

28 ads · 25 text, 3 image · 12 shown in the last 30 days

First shown July 2025, as Tigera Inc, verified. Ads started 2025-10 to 2026-09: 26 in the year, 2 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 10 of 94 in microsegmentation

Segment leader

25%

ColorTokens Xshield

First choices: 1 across its categories
Named in: 30 answers
Its own site cited: in 28 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

Addresses on tigera.io

2,316

subdomains included

Content

968

counted in the table below

Documentation

1,043

Product · Integration

16 · 7

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	533	17	2026-09-23	WAF, SIEM
Conference or event	214	15	2026-09-21
Report or ebook	153	5	2026-08-25	CNAPP, WAF
Case study	25	0	2025-11-14
Glossary or explainer	18	0	2024-05-17
News or press	10	1	2026-07-23
Comparison	7	0	2025-12-24
Template or tool	5	0	2026-05-07
Webinar or virtual event	3	0	2017-02-24

Most recent

2026-09-23Clearinghouse blog
2026-09-21Discovering and securing ai agents in kubernetes conference or event
2026-09-17Hitl for autonomous agents where does the human go blog
2026-09-16Not every vm needs to keep its ip choosing a network model for kubevirt conference or event
2026-09-16The ticket says cant reach the database troubleshooting vm and pod traffic with evidence conference or event
2026-09-16Your vm moved but its load balancer didnt rebuilding the application edge on kubernetes conference or event

Events in person

Last twelve months

October 22, 2026Your VM Moved but Its Load Balancer Didn’t: Rebuilding the Application Edge on Kubernetesplace not stated · hosted
March 23, 2026Workshop: Securing Autonomous AI Agents in ProductionApollo Hotel Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands · hosted

As the event pages on tigera.io state them, read September 28, 2026.

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page tigera.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. 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 Calico

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Calico; a claim can dispute any of them.

Calico OSS 2Calico (Tigera) 1Calico (Tigera/Cloudflare) 1

Follow Calico

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

Calico is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Unified platform for Kubernetes networking and security
tigera.io
For: Platform Engineering & Security Teams
tigera.io
Price stated: Pricing varies based on customer needs. Contact for a custom quote. tigera.io
Free plan or trial: Start Free tigera.io/features/encryption
Customers named: OrangeAldagiNBC UniversalMeridianLinkMulligan FundingHanseMerkurfiserv.Berenberg
Not stated on the pages read: Starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting

What Calico's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: tigera.io, tigera.io/tutorials-use_case/compliance, tigera.io/features/encryption, tigera.io/customer-stories, tigera.io/partners. 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 Calico'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 Calico, 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 Calico by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Calico 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 Calico, 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.