IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › CISA AIS · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

CISA AIS

12Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

7 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

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CISA AIS was named 4 times in Threat intel, where NordStellar led with 13%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business26 of 122

under the label threshold

Mid-market29 of 128

under the label threshold

Enterprise66 of 105

under the label threshold

In threat intel · 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 CISA AIS 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
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	29 of 128	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by NordStellar at 13%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for CISA AIS 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 CISA AIS 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	1	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained6 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 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.

“Free government-shared threat indicators (STIX 2.1)” Kimi K2 · Threat intel · 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 CISA AIS, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CISA AIS was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

MISP10 of 126Not in the top three

AlienVault OTX10 of 122Not in the top three

Abuse.ch9 of 120Not in the top three

VirusTotal7 of 121Not in the top three

GreyNoise7 of 120Not in the top three

NordStellar6 of 122Not in the top three

Recorded Future6 of 121Not in the top three

ThreatConnect6 of 121Not in the top three

OpenCTI5 of 123Not in the top three

Anomali ThreatStream3 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 CISA AIS. 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 12 of the 12 answers that named CISA AIS and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

b2breviews.com10

vectra.ai10

learn.g2.com9

upguard.com8

esecurityplanet.com7

expertinsights.com5

sourceforge.net5

cipherssecurity.com4

cyware.com4

decryptiondigest.com4

Sixty-six of the sixty-six domain citations in answers naming CISA AIS came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

b2breviews.com/threat-intelligence-platforms10

vectra.ai/topics/threat-intelligence-tools10

learn.g2.com/best-threat-intelligence-tools9

upguard.com/blog/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-vendors8

esecurityplanet.com/products/threat-intelligence-platforms7

cipherssecurity.com/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-20264

cyware.com/blog/best-open-source-threat-intelligence-platforms4

misp-project.org/4

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 CISA AIS'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 CISA AIS, 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 cisa.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.