Every category where a model named CyberArk Conjur 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
Secrets management	Identity and access	0%	13 of 40	25%	12	criticized challenger
Privileged access management	Identity and access	0%	65 of 74	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by ManageEngine PAM360 at 21%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	1	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct8 labelsNone

Paraphrase9 labelsNone

Comparative15 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative52 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.

“Regulated enterprises w/ PAM | Ties into full PAM/identity; strong audits; heavier for non-CyberArk users.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Secrets · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for: Enterprises with existing CyberArk PAM infrastructure, regulated industries” Kimi K2 · Secrets · comparative prompt · alternative

“Other options to consider are AWS Secrets Manager, CyberArk Conjur, and EnvManager.” Llama 4 Maverick · Secrets · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Enterprise with a PAM program / regulated industry → CyberArk Conjur” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Secrets · comparative 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.

“Avoid for general-purpose IT administration.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PAM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Heavyweight and enterprise-priced — overkill for smaller teams” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Secrets · negative prompt · soft negative

“Expensive, complex to operate; steep learning curve” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Secrets · direct prompt · soft negative

“CyberArk Conjur: Heavyweight, enterprise pricing” Llama 4 Maverick · Secrets · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as CyberArk Conjur, over the 52 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CyberArk Conjur was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

HashiCorp Vault52 of 5230Not in the top three

AWS Secrets Manager44 of 520Not in the top three

Azure Key Vault40 of 520Not in the top three

Doppler36 of 525Not in the top three

Akeyless31 of 524Not in the top three

Infisical30 of 521Not in the top three

Google Secret Manager23 of 520Not in the top three

1Password20 of 521Not in the top three

Bitwarden Secrets Manager7 of 521Not in the top three

OpenBao7 of 520Not 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 CyberArk Conjur. 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 44 of the 52 answers that named CyberArk Conjur and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

blog.gitguardian.com40

envmanager.com29

startwithidentity.com28

safeguard.sh25

akeyless.io18

cycode.com17

guideflow.com17

doppler.com14

infisical.com14

tech-insider.org12

214 of the 214 domain citations in answers naming CyberArk Conjur came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

blog.gitguardian.com/top-secrets-management-tools40

envmanager.com/blog/best-secrets-management-tools29

startwithidentity.com/rankings/best-secrets-management-tools25

safeguard.sh/resources/blog/best-secrets-management-and-vaulting-solutions19

cycode.com/blog/best-secrets-management-tools17

guideflow.com/blog/secrets-management-software17

tech-insider.org/hashicorp-vault-vs-aws-secrets-manager-vs-azure-key-vault-202612

worldmetrics.org/best/secrets-management-software12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as CyberArk Conjur

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

Conjur 1CyberArk Conjur Open Source 1

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 CyberArk Conjur'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 CyberArk Conjur, 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 cyberark.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.