IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Check Point Software Technologies · September 2026 Edition

Check Point · 1 category · Named, not ranked

Check Point Software Technologies

1Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

1 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Check Point Software Technologies was named 1 time in XDR, where Microsoft Defender XDR led with 63%. 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-market37 of 61

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In xdr · 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 Check Point Software Technologies 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
Extended detection and response	Security operations	0%	37 of 61	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender XDR at 63%

Movement

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

Model	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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 Check Point Software Technologies, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Check Point Software Technologies was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CrowdStrike Falcon XDR1 of 10Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender XDR1 of 10Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks1 of 10Not in the top three

SentinelOne Singularity1 of 10Not in the top three

Stellar Cyber1 of 10Not in the top three

eSentire Atlas1 of 10Not 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 Check Point Software Technologies. 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 1 of the 1 answers that named Check Point Software Technologies and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

aimultiple.com1

cybertechnologyinsights.com1

cyberwarzone.com1

fidelissecurity.com1

guideflow.com1

paloaltonetworks.com1

sentinelone.com1

stellarcyber.ai1

Eight of the eight domain citations in answers naming Check Point Software Technologies came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

aimultiple.com/xdr-solutions1

cybertechnologyinsights.com/xdr/the-best-xdr-platforms-compared-top-picks-for-20261

cyberwarzone.com/2026/03/19/top-xdr-tools-20261

fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/xdr-security/best-xdr-solutions-comparison1

guideflow.com/blog/xdr-platform1

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/xdr-solutions1

sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/endpoint-security/xdr-solutions1

sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/xdr/xdr-platforms1

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 Check Point Software Technologies'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 Check Point Software Technologies, 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 checkpoint.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.