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 30 → 78 of 84
3 categories · Named, not rankedCyberArk
25Judge labels
0First choices
9Negative labels
8 / 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.
Standing
6 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CyberArk was named 6 times in IGA and 2 other categories, where Microsoft Entra ID Governance led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business84 of 89
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market50 of 76
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise21 of 76
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
In iga · 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity governance | Identity and access | 0% | 50 of 76 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Entra ID Governance at 25% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Insider risk management | Security operations | 0% | 36 of 84 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management at 22% | |
| Business password managers | Identity and access | 0% | 13 of 35 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by 1Password at 47% | =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 held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · IGA · by segment
Mid-market▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 21 → 45 of 71
Enterprise=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 22 → 30 of 70
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IGA | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 21 → 50 of 76 |
| Insider risk | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 36 of 84, unchanged |
| Password managers | 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 19 → 13 of 35 |
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 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 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
Direct3 labelsNone
Paraphrase1 labelNone
Comparative3 labelsNone
Budget-constrained4 labelsNone
Scale-constrained4 labelsNone
Negative10 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 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.
“The Best for Physical/Hybrid Access Control ... CyberArk centralizes this.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Insider risk · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“CyberArk for security-first/PAM” Grok 4.20 · IGA · negative 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.
“CyberArk (Great for PAM, distinct from general IGA)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · IGA · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CyberArk, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CyberArk was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CyberArk, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CyberArk 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. 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 17 of the 25 answers that named CyberArk and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
aimultiple.com7
lumos.com6
almcorp.com5
corma.io5
securityboulevard.com5
cybersecuritynews.com4
expertinsights.com4
gitnux.org4
idenhq.com4
zipdo.co4
Forty-eight of the forty-eight domain citations in answers naming CyberArk 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 takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Entra ID Governance takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
cyberark.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, CyberArk takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Entra ID Governance takes 25%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “identity governance platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “identity governance platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 22,200 a month (“cyberark”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1,253 a month
- 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 50 of 76 in IGA
Segment leader
25%
Microsoft Entra ID Governance
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 25 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 17 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
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on cyberark.com
9,714
subdomains included
Content
8,551
counted in the table below
Documentation
20
Product · Integration
15 · 3
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 4,694 | 29 | 2026-09-01 | SASE, XDR | |
| Report or ebook | 1,880 | 0 | 2023-05-01 | SASE, SD-WAN | |
| Podcast or video | 534 | 0 | 2015-08-01 | SASE, XDR | |
| News or press | 408 | 0 | 2018-12-01 | SASE, Firewalls | |
| Glossary or explainer | 362 | 0 | 2024-01-01 | EDR, SD-WAN | |
| Case study | 351 | 0 | 2007-07-16 | SASE, MDR | |
| Conference or event | 113 | 0 | 2023-07-01 | SASE | |
| Comparison | 98 | 0 | 2023-03-01 | SASE, XDR | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 90 | 0 | 2021-01-01 | Firewalls, SOAR | |
| Template or tool | 21 | 0 | 2019-06-01 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-01Making the most of the cloud marketplace opportunity blog
- 2026-09-01Building securely from day one palo alto networks partners with the zendesk startup program blog
- 2026-09-01Putting openai cyber models to work for defenders blog
- 2026-09-01Palo alto networks named a leader in the 2026 gartner magic quadrant for hybrid mesh firewall securing every environment blog
- 2026-09-01Fedramp moderate authorization for palo alto networks quantum safe security blog
- 2026-09-01Secure AI Coding: Governing every agent, artifact, and identity blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page cyberark.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. Of its titles that name a category, most name SASE (206); 0 name its categories the models place it in. 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 CyberArk
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as CyberArk; a claim can dispute any of them.
CyberArk (Identity Cloud) 1
Follow CyberArk
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 its own company.ShowHide
The company
CyberArk is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- trusted partner for securing privilege and defending your critical assets
- For
- global organizations
- Integrations claimed
- 300 cyberark.com
- Certifications
- CCPAGDPRSOC 2SOC 3ISO/IEC 27001:2022ISO/IEC 27017:2015ISO/IEC 27018:2019ISO 9001:2015
- Customers named
- Coca-Cola Europacific PartnersPDS HealthMaximusWebster BankEncova
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, hosting
What CyberArk's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: cyberark.com, trust.cyberark.com. 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 CyberArk'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, 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 by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where CyberArk 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, 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.