| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Managed detection and response | Security operations | 2% | 5 of 67 | 22% | 27 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Endpoint protection | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 59 of 86 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint at 22% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDR | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 5 of 67 |
| Endpoint protection | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 26 → 59 of 86 |
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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“If you want the safest "default best" for many mid-market B2B firms: CrowdStrike Falcon Complete Next-Gen MDR.” GPT-5.4 mini · MDR · direct prompt · first choice
“Often ranked #1 in independent evaluations (~8.8/10 in recent scoring)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · MDR · comparative prompt · first choice
“Ranked highest by Forrester in Strategy & Current Offering (2025)” Kimi K2 · MDR · comparative prompt · first choice
“Highly regarded for its "zero-touch" remediation capabilities... It is incredibly deep but comes with premium pricing” Gemini 3.5 Flash · MDR · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“What to Avoid on a Tight Budget ... Premium pricing; requires committing to their platform” Kimi K2 · MDR · budget prompt · hard negative
“CrowdStrike carries a premium price tag and often requires higher minimum-spend agreements that may not align with smaller mid-market budgets.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Endpoint protection · direct prompt · soft negative
“It sits at a premium price point compared to Sophos or Arctic Wolf, which can sometimes push it out of reach for smaller mid-market budgets.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · MDR · direct prompt · soft negative
“CrowdStrike Falcon Complete's pricing and operational complexity exceed what most small and mid-size organizations can support” Claude Haiku 4.5 · MDR · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 86 of the 90 answers that named CrowdStrike Falcon Complete and are not a share of its labels.
291 of the 324 domain citations in answers naming CrowdStrike Falcon Complete came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
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.
What CrowdStrike Falcon Complete's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: crowdstrike.com/services/falcon-complete-next-gen-mdr, crowdstrike.com/es-es/services/falcon-complete-mdr, crowdstrike.com/resources/demos/falcon-complete-mdr, crowdstrike.com/es-latam/services/falcon-complete-mdr, crowdstrike.com/es-latam/services/falcon-complete-next-gen-mdr. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 CrowdStrike Falcon Complete'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 CrowdStrike Falcon Complete, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CrowdStrike Falcon Complete by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: