IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Code42 Incydr · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Code42 Incydr

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. Code42 Incydr was named 1 time in DLP, where Microsoft Purview DLP led with 39%. 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-market25 of 84

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In dlp · 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 Code42 Incydr 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
Data loss prevention	Security operations	0%	25 of 84	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview DLP at 39%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Code42 Incydr 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 Code42 Incydr across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	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.

“Teramind or Code42 Incydr are best for insider risk” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DLP · comparative 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 Code42 Incydr, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Code42 Incydr was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Strac1 of 11Not in the top three

Cyera1 of 10Not in the top three

Forcepoint DLP1 of 10Not in the top three

Microsoft Purview DLP1 of 10Not in the top three

Netskope DLP1 of 10Not in the top three

Nightfall AI1 of 10Not in the top three

Proofpoint Enterprise DLP1 of 10Not in the top three

Symantec Data Loss Prevention1 of 10Not in the top three

Teramind1 of 10Not in the top three

Varonis1 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 Code42 Incydr. 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 Code42 Incydr and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

concentric.ai1

currentware.com1

gartner.com1

kickidler.com1

miniorange.com1

netwrix.com1

peerspot.com1

strac.io1

teramind.co1

Nine of the nine domain citations in answers naming Code42 Incydr came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

concentric.ai/data-loss-prevention-dlp-software-tools-top-vendors-compared-in-20261

currentware.com/blog/best-data-loss-prevention-software1

gartner.com/reviews/market/data-loss-prevention1

kickidler.com/reviews/top-best-data-loss-prevention-software-dlp.html1

miniorange.com/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-tools1

netwrix.com/en/resources/blog/dlp-solutions1

peerspot.com/categories/data-loss-prevention-dlp1

strac.io/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-dlp-tools1

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 Code42 Incydr'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 Code42 Incydr, 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 code42.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.