Small business▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 31 → 6 of 114
2 categories · Named, not rankedCrowdSec
18Judge labels
3First choices
0Negative labels
9 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
6 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CrowdSec was named 6 times in Threat intel and 1 other category, where MISP led with 12%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business6 of 126
4%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market17 of 119
2%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
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 CrowdSec 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intelligence platforms | Security operations | 2% | 17 of 119 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by MISP at 12% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Bot management | Network and edge | 0% | 14 of 83 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare Bot Management at 56% |
Movement
Since September 2026, CrowdSec held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Threat intel · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 41 → 15 of 111
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intel | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 41 → 17 of 119 |
| Bot management | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 14 of 83, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated CrowdSec across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated CrowdSec across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
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
Paraphrase1 labelNone
Comparative2 labelsNone
Budget-constrained11 labels3
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative2 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 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.
“Highly recommended for affordability, especially for smaller businesses or individual users.” Mistral Small · Threat intel · budget prompt · first choice
“CrowdSec is highlighted as one of the more affordable options for smaller businesses and individual users” Perplexity Sonar · Threat intel · budget prompt · alternative
“Free (open-source) | Self-hosted, community blocklists, customizable | Requires server setup/tech skills” Grok 4.20 · Bot management · budget prompt · alternative
“with CrowdSec/SafeLine as the zero-license self-hosted alternative if you can operate it yourself” Muse Glimmer 30B · Bot management · 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 CrowdSec, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CrowdSec was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CrowdSec, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CrowdSec was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 CrowdSec. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 16 of the 18 answers that named CrowdSec and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
learn.g2.com8
thectoclub.com8
developers.cloudflare.com6
us.fitgap.com6
cloudflare.com5
sourceforge.net5
upguard.com5
vectra.ai5
b2breviews.com4
comparitech.com4
Fifty-six of the fifty-six domain citations in answers naming CrowdSec came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on crowdsec.net
2,263
subdomains included
Content
255
counted in the table below
Documentation
497
Product · Integration
9 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 222 | 8 | 2026-09-21 | WAF | |
| Glossary or explainer | 19 | 0 | 2025-04-16 | WAF | |
| Comparison | 6 | 1 | 2026-09-24 | ||
| Report or ebook | 3 | 0 | 2025-02-12 | ||
| News or press | 3 | 0 | 2024-07-01 | ||
| Case study | 2 | 0 | 2025-03-25 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-24Crowdsec vs suricata do you need both for linux servers comparison
- 2026-09-21Tanstack supply chain attaque analyse blog
- 2026-09-18Tanstack supply chain attack analysis blog
- 2026-09-17CrowdSec Statement: Source Code Exposure in May 2026 blog
- 2026-09-08Nginx bot protection crowdsec blog
- 2026-09-01Crowdsec 1 8 waf bot detection kubernetes blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page crowdsec.net exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Of its titles that name a category, most name WAF (17); 0 name its categories the models place it in. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow CrowdSec
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
CrowdSec is its own company.ShowHide
The company
CrowdSec is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- We turn crowd-powered intelligence into tactical intelligence with actionable blocklists to maximize your SOC efficiency and reduce your costs.
- For
- SOC
- Price stated
- Starting at $2k/month for SMB; Starting at $1900/month for SMB; IP Reputation API access from $49/month for 5000 queries; Local CTI replication from $9K/month; Emergency bug fixes $1K/month; Premium service and support $1K/month crowdsec.net/pricing
- Starting price
- $49/month crowdsec.net/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Try it for free crowdsec.net/pricing
- Integrations claimed
- 13 crowdsec.net/solutions/dora
- Customers named
- Crédit MutuelScaleCommerceLe MondeTrinapsRegion Östergötland
- Not stated on the pages read
- Certifications, hosting
What CrowdSec's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: crowdsec.net, crowdsec.net/pricing, crowdsec.net/solutions/dora, crowdsec.net/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of 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 CrowdSec'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 CrowdSec, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CrowdSec by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where CrowdSec is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name CrowdSec, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.