Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 35 → 40 of 41
CyberArk · 3 categories · RankedCyberArk Conjur
75Judge labels
2First choices
23Negative labels
13 / 14Models named it
3Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Secrets for enterprise buyers
Rank 14 of 59 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 17% of its 18 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of CyberArk Conjur →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business43 of 43
0%9 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market14 of 59
0%18 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise9 of 53
2%30 labels
accepted challenger
In secrets · 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 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secrets management | Identity and access | 0% | 14 of 59 | 17% | 18 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Non-human identity management | Identity and access | 0% | 58 of 128 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by JumpCloud at 14% | |
| Privileged access management | Identity and access | 0% | 39 of 73 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Delinea Secret Server at 37% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, CyberArk Conjur held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Secrets · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 14 → 15 of 54
Enterprise▲+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 7 → 6 of 53
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secrets | 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 14 of 59, unchanged |
| NHI management | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 58 of 128, unchanged |
| PAM | 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 62 → 39 of 73 |
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 CyberArk Conjur 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 CyberArk Conjur 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
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
Paraphrase12 labels2
Comparative23 labelsNone
Budget-constrained3 labelsNone
Scale-constrained9 labelsNone
Negative20 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative75 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.
“if your primary concern is privileged access management for service accounts ... CyberArk would be the better choice” MiniMax M2.5 · NHI management · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“best for deep integration with identity and access management systems, with container-native design” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Secrets · comparative prompt · alternative
“Heavy enterprise/PAM compliance needs? → CyberArk Conjur (if already in the CyberArk ecosystem)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Secrets · comparative prompt · alternative
“Are you in finance/healthcare with strict compliance needs? Look at CyberArk Conjur.” Qwen 3.7 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.
“The tools to actively avoid are: 1. Outdated, unpatched instances of Conjur or Vault (they've had full-takeover RCEs).” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Secrets · negative prompt · hard negative
“⚠️ High Priority Concern ... Critical vulnerabilities discovered (July 2025) ... Pre-authentication RCE chain” Kimi K2 · Secrets · negative prompt · hard negative
“HashiCorp Vault & CyberArk Conjur — Exercise Caution” Kimi K2 · NHI management · negative prompt · soft negative
“Heavyweight; overkill for many 500-person companies” Kimi K2 · Secrets · scale prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CyberArk Conjur, over the 75 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.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CyberArk Conjur, over the 75 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.
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 CyberArk Conjur. 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 75 of the 75 answers that named CyberArk Conjur and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
cybersecuritynews.com47
blog.gitguardian.com41
startwithidentity.com38
guideflow.com35
doppler.com29
akeyless.io27
g2.com25
infisical.com25
cyberpress.org24
cycode.com23
314 of the 314 domain citations in answers naming CyberArk Conjur came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
cyberark.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, CyberArk Conjur takes 0% of first choices and HashiCorp Vault takes 31%.ShowHide
Search and answers
cyberark.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, CyberArk Conjur takes 0% of first choices and HashiCorp Vault takes 31%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “secrets management tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “secrets management tools”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 320 a month (“cyberark conjur”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 6 a month
- Its company's site
- cyberark.com shared with CyberArk's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 147,793 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 8,049 · 538 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 13,201
- Paid Google search
- 1 searches its ads show for, about 4 clicks and $62 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 14 of 59 in secrets
Segment leader
31%
HashiCorp Vault
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 75 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 75 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.
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 (OSS) 1CyberArk Conjur / CyberArk secrets capabilities 1CyberArk Conjur / Idira Secrets Hub 1CyberArk Conjur / Secrets Manager Self-Hosted 1CyberArk Conjur/DevSecOps 1CyberArk Conjur/Secrets Manager 1CyberArk/Conjur 1
Follow CyberArk Conjur
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
CyberArk is the company behind CyberArk Conjur.ShowHide
The company
CyberArk is the company behind CyberArk Conjur.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIs 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.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CyberArk Conjur by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where CyberArk Conjur 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 CyberArk Conjur, 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.