IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Checkov · September 2026 Edition

4 categories · Named, not ranked

Checkov

12Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

5 of 12Models named it

4Categories

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

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Checkov was named 7 times in CSPM and 3 other categories, where Wiz led with 43%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business31 of 64

under the label threshold

Mid-market16 of 53

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In cspm · 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 Checkov 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
Cloud security posture management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	16 of 53	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 43%
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	21 of 78	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Aqua Security at 18%
Cloud-native application protection	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	38 of 57	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 46%
Infrastructure as code	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	31 of 46	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Terraform at 46%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Checkov 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 Checkov 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	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	0	2
Kimi K2	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 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.

“Pair it with Checkov for infrastructure-as-code scanning” Kimi K2 · CSPM · budget prompt · alternative

“Use Checkov to stop bad Dockerfiles from being built” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Container security · budget prompt · alternative

“Checkov (free) for Infrastructure-as-Code scanning” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CSPM · budget prompt · alternative

“e.g., Snyk, Checkov” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Container security · negative 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 Checkov, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Checkov was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Defender for Cloud8 of 123Not in the top three

Prowler7 of 122Not in the top three

Wiz6 of 121Not in the top three

Prisma Cloud6 of 120Not in the top three

Falco5 of 120Not in the top three

Trivy4 of 121Not in the top three

Aikido Security3 of 122Not in the top three

Google Security Command Center3 of 121Not in the top three

Bridgecrew3 of 120Not in the top three

Kubescape3 of 120Not 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 Checkov. 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 10 of the 12 answers that named Checkov and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org6

cybersecuritynews.com5

gbhackers.com5

aikido.dev4

cloudaware.com4

wiz.io4

cloudgovernancecost.com3

complyjet.com3

kubernetes.ae3

microsoft.com3

Forty of the forty domain citations in answers naming Checkov came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/cspm-tools-by-business-size-24

aikido.dev/blog/top-cloud-native-application-protection-platforms-cnapp3

cloudaware.com/blog/top-cloud-security-posture-management-vendors3

cloudgovernancecost.com/tools3

complyjet.com/blog/best-cspm-tools3

cyberpress.org/cnapp-platforms-by-business-size-23

gbhackers.com/best-cnapp-compared3

kubernetes.ae/cnapp-comparison-20263

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Checkov

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

Checkov/Bridgecrew 1

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 Checkov'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 Checkov, 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 checkov.io 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.