IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Comp AI · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Comp AI

9Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Comp AI was named 2 times in Compliance automation and 1 other category, where Drata led with 37%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business8 of 60

under the label threshold

Mid-market35 of 54

under the label threshold

Enterprise27 of 54

under the label threshold

In compliance automation · 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 Comp AI 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
Compliance automation	Security operations	0%	35 of 54	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Drata at 37%
GRC platforms	Security operations	0%	50 of 77	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Vanta at 14%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Comp AI 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 Comp AI 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	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 label1

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative1 label1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative9 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.

“Best for: Technical founders who want inspectable software with expert Slack support” Kimi K2 · Compliance automation · 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 Comp AI, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Comp AI was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vanta8 of 90Not in the top three

Sprinto6 of 91Not in the top three

Drata6 of 90Not in the top three

Hyperproof3 of 90Not in the top three

Scrut3 of 90Not in the top three

Scytale3 of 90Not in the top three

Secureframe3 of 90Not in the top three

LowerPlane2 of 91Not in the top three

Probo2 of 90Not in the top three

Scrut Automation2 of 90Not 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 Comp AI. 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 8 of the 9 answers that named Comp AI and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

soc2auditors.org6

brightdefense.com3

getsecureslate.com3

incorp.com3

thesectorpost.com3

topickz.com3

cavanex.com2

lowerplane.com2

optro.ai2

scytale.ai2

Twenty-nine of the twenty-nine domain citations in answers naming Comp AI came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

brightdefense.com/resources/grc-tools-for-smbs-and-startups3

incorp.com/resources/knowledge-base/best-compliance-tools3

topickz.com/list/best-compliance-automation3

cavanex.com/blog/soc-2-compliance-platforms-compared-20262

getsecureslate.com/blog/top-7-affordable-compliance-platforms-for-smart-compliance2

optro.ai/blog/compliance-automation-tools2

scytale.ai/soc-22

soc2auditors.org/compliance-automation-software2

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 Comp AI'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 Comp AI, 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 compai.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.