IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Complyance · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Complyance

2Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

2 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. Complyance was named 1 time in Compliance automation, 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 businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market50 of 54

under the label threshold

Enterprise29 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 Complyance 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%	50 of 54	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Drata at 37%

Movement

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

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
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	1	1
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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

“proceed cautiously or avoid these... Reviewers frequently cite poor integration capabilities and a lack of flexibility in evidence collection” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Compliance automation · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Complyance, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Complyance was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Drata2 of 21Not in the top three

Vanta2 of 20Not in the top three

AuditBoard1 of 20Not in the top three

Compliance Quest1 of 20Not in the top three

Hyperproof1 of 20Not in the top three

Kaseya's Compliance Manager1 of 20Not in the top three

MyComplianceOffice1 of 20Not in the top three

Secureframe1 of 20Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management1 of 20Not 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 Complyance. 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 2 answers that named Complyance and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

capterra.ca1

cybersaint.io1

g2.com1

linkedin.com1

lorikeetsecurity.com1

softwareadvice.com1

sprinto.com1

stackscout.net1

Eight of the eight domain citations in answers naming Complyance came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

capterra.ca/reviews/194233/compliance-manager1

cybersaint.io/blog/10-reasons-continuous-compliance-fails-in-enterprises1

g2.com/compare/drata-vs-secureframe1

g2.com/products/complyance-complyance/reviews1

g2.com/products/mycomplianceoffice/reviews1

linkedin.com/posts/peterhallen_i-stopped-referring-clients-to-vanta-drata-activity-74915071

lorikeetsecurity.com/blog/drata-vs-vanta-vs-secureframe1

softwareadvice.com/crm/compliancequest-profile/reviews1

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 Complyance'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 Complyance, 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 complyan.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.