Every category where a model named CrowdStrike 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
AI security platforms	Security operations	2%	13 of 233	6%	16	accepted challenger
Endpoint protection	IT operations and endpoint	2%	11 of 86	22%	9	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint at 22%	▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Identity threat detection and response	Identity and access	0%	32 of 105	36%	14	criticized challenger
Managed detection and response	Security operations	0%	16 of 67	33%	12	criticized challenger	▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Endpoint detection and response	Security operations	0%	53 of 55	55%	11	criticized challenger	▼−6Since September 2026: 6% → 0%, −6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Cloud security posture management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	15 of 80	20%	10	accepted challenger	▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Digital risk protection	Security operations	0%	47 of 86	38%	8	under 10 labels · led by UpGuard BreachSight at 22%
OT and IoT security	Security operations	0%	87 of 107	38%	8	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for IoT at 21%
SaaS security posture management	Security operations	0%	29 of 95	29%	7	under 10 labels · led by Wing Security at 30%
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	117 of 119	57%	7	under 10 labels · led by MISP at 12%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Cloud-native application protection	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	21 of 70	17%	6	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 37%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
AI SOC agents	Security operations	0%	35 of 104	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Dropzone AI at 24%
Data security posture management	Security operations	0%	26 of 105	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview at 18%
Vulnerability management platforms	Security operations	0%	17 of 77	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 30%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	38 of 77	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 22%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	58 of 82	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 45%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Application security posture management	Developer platform	0%	33 of 70	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Aikido Security at 37%
Client-side protection	Security operations	0%	109 of 120	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by cside at 13%
Microsegmentation	Network and edge	0%	76 of 94	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by ColorTokens Xshield at 25%
Network detection and response	Security operations	0%	50 of 102	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by ManageEngine NetFlow Analyzer at 21%
Application shielding	Developer platform	0%	44 of 87	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Appdome at 33%
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	93 of 100	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 49%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Deception technology	Security operations	0%	62 of 94	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Thinkst Canary at 37%
Incident management and on-call	IT operations and endpoint	0%	60 of 65	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by incident.io at 32%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	61 of 73	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 28%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
Network access control	Network and edge	0%	46 of 111	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Portnox Cloud at 35%
SIEM platforms	Security operations	0%	38 of 61	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Sentinel at 38%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
SOAR platforms	Security operations	0%	28 of 67	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Tines at 41%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for CrowdStrike yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated CrowdStrike 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	1	1	8	2	12
GPT-5.4 mini	0	2	3	1	6
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	5	4	7	16
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	4	4	10
Grok 4.20	2	2	5	6	15
Mistral Small	1	3	4	1	9
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	4	1	7
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	7	0	8
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	8	12	5	26
Kimi K2	0	1	8	6	15
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	5	2	8
MiniMax M2.5	1	2	4	2	9
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	0	4	4	9

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

Direct56 labels6

Paraphrase26 labels3

Comparative71 labels6not counted in share

Budget-constrained65 labels2

Scale-constrained76 labels4

Negative88 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative382 labels in all, every segment counted; 15 of the 23 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.

“Most mid-market companies start by deploying Hidden Layer (for app sec) and CrowdStrike (for infrastructure).” Qwen 3.7 Flash · AI security · direct prompt · first choice

“CrowdStrike Falcon and SentinelOne Singularity remain the two strongest all-around endpoint security platforms” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Endpoint protection · comparative prompt · first choice

“Highest in Ability to Execute and furthest right for Completeness of Vision (5th consecutive year).” Grok 4.20 · Endpoint protection · comparative prompt · first choice

“Named the overall leader in the first ITDR comparative report, receiving a perfect 5/5 rating” Mistral Small · ITDR · comparative prompt · first choice

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.

“Avoid IT-centric tools (Splunk, CrowdStrike, typical NDR) as your *primary* OT security platform.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · OT/IoT security · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid enterprise-heavy tools like CrowdStrike (~$5-10/identity but often bundled/quoted higher)” Grok 4.20 · ITDR · budget prompt · hard negative

“Many enterprise-tier ITDR solutions (like Silverfort, CrowdStrike, and SentinelOne) require minimum seat counts, custom quoting, and—most importantly—significant engineering resources to manage.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ITDR · budget prompt · soft negative

“certain leading market players (specifically noted in community feedback regarding CrowdStrike) can have steep learning curves, expensive "seat" costs, and complex query languages” Qwen 3.7 Flash · ITDR · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CrowdStrike, over the 382 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CrowdStrike was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

SentinelOne Singularity64 of 3824Compare →

Wiz63 of 38214Compare →

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint39 of 38211Not among the top eight

Palo Alto Networks37 of 3824Not among the top eight

Huntress Managed EDR33 of 38216Not among the top eight

Sophos Intercept X33 of 3825Not among the top eight

Microsoft33 of 3820Not among the top eight

Microsoft Defender for Cloud31 of 3828Not among the top eight

SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint28 of 3821Not among the top eight

Prisma Cloud25 of 3823Not among the top eight

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 CrowdStrike. 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 337 of the 382 answers that named CrowdStrike and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com84

expertinsights.com81

cybersecuritynews.com80

huntress.com78

gbhackers.com75

cyberpress.org67

crowdstrike.comYour site62

paloaltonetworks.com59

gartner.com58

guideflow.com58

640 of the 702 domain citations in answers naming CrowdStrike came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

huntress.com/itdr-guide/best-itdr-vendors28

huntress.com/cybersecurity-insights/managed-detection-response-vendors23

cynet.com/security-foundations/identity-security/itdr-vendors21

acronis.com/en/blog/posts/best-edr-endpoint-detection-and-response-solutions-in-202618

cybersecuritynews.com/best-identity-threat-detection-and-response-solutions18

gbhackers.com/best-sspm-compared18

cyberpress.org/sspm-tools-by-business-size-217

expertinsights.com/identity-and-access-management/the-top-identity-threat-detection-and-re17

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

crowdstrike.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, CrowdStrike takes 2% of first choices and SentinelOne Singularity takes 11%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “ai security platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “ai security platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 74,000 a month (“crowdstrike”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 5,130 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 715,209 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 43,445 · 4,686 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 36,699
Paid Google search: 29 searches its ads show for, about 239 clicks and $13,967 a month (estimate)

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

119+ ads · 87 text, 20 image, 12 video · 119 shown in the last 30 days

First shown August 2024, as CROWDSTRIKE, INC., verified. Ads started 2025-10 to 2026-09: 90 in the year, 29 before. 1 more by other advertisers linking to it.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 13 of 233 in AI security

Segment leader

11%

SentinelOne Singularity

First choices: 15 across its categories
Named in: 382 answers
Its own site cited: in 337 of the answers that named it

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.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on crowdstrike.com

14,523

subdomains included

Content

6,477

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

649 · 76

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest
Blog	3,995	undated
Report or ebook	750	16	2026-09-21
News or press	713	28	2026-09-24
Case study	479	16	2026-09-24
Podcast or video	231	0	2026-03-24
Comparison	169	undated
Conference or event	103	0	2026-05-07
Webinar or virtual event	20	undated
Glossary or explainer	10	undated
Template or tool	7	0	2026-03-05

Most recent

2026-09-24Crowdstrike named leader proactive security platforms news or press
2026-09-24Solarig case study
2026-09-21Forrester wave proactive security platforms q3 2026 report or ebook
2026-09-17Forrester wave external threat intelligence q3 2026 report or ebook
2026-09-17Crowdstrike named leader external threat intelligence news or press
2026-09-16Efg holding case study

Events in person

Last twelve months

October 27, 2026 to October 29, 2026it-sa Expo&CongressNürnberg · exhibited
August 30, 2026 to September 1, 2026CrowdStrike Day Zero 2026 Threat Research SummitVirgin Hotel Las Vegas, Las Vegas · hosted
June 9, 2026CrowdTour FrankfurtFrankfurt · hosted
April 14, 2026CrowdTour WienWien · hosted

As the event pages on crowdstrike.com state them, read September 28, 2026.

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page crowdstrike.com 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. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as CrowdStrike

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as CrowdStrike; a claim can dispute any of them.

Crowdstrike 4CrowdStrike (Adaptive Shield) 3CrowdStrike (Falcon) 2CrowdStrike (Charlotte AI & Falcon Platform) 1CrowdStrike (Charlotte AI) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Cloud Security) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Complete) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Data Protection) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Platform / Charlotte AI) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Platform) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Pro) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon SSPM) 1CrowdStrike (Falcon Spotlight) 1CrowdStrike (LogScale/Humio) 1CrowdStrike/Falcon Honeypot 1crowdStrike 1

Follow CrowdStrike

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

CrowdStrike is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: We Stop Breaches with AI-native Cybersecurity
crowdstrike.com
For: small and medium businesses
crowdstrike.com
Price stated: Free; $7.99 per device, billed monthly; $14.99 per device, billed monthly; $19.99 per device, billed monthly; $59.99 per device, billed annually; $99.99 per device, billed annually; $184.99 per device, billed annually crowdstrike.com
Starting price: 7.99 crowdstrike.com
Free plan or trial: Try for 15 days; Free; No credit card required crowdstrike.com
Certifications: SOC 2C5CSA STAR Level 2ISO/IEC 27001ISO/IEC 27017:2015ISO/IEC 42001:2023ISO 22301:2019PCI DSS v4.0.1
Customers named: Travel + LeisureTaylorMade Golfthe ALDO GroupIntel CorporationCommercial Bank of CaliforniaCBCMontage HealthTarget
Not stated on the pages read: Integrations, hosting

What CrowdStrike's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: crowdstrike.com, crowdstrike.com/en-us/pricing, trust.crowdstrike.com, crowdstrike.com/platform, crowdstrike.com/resources/case-studies. 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 CrowdStrike'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, 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 CrowdStrike by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where CrowdStrike 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 CrowdStrike, 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.