Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 30 of 46, unchanged
3 categories · Named, not rankedCybereason
14Judge labels
0First choices
3Negative labels
10 / 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
5 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Cybereason was named 5 times in EDR and 2 other categories, where Microsoft Defender for Endpoint led with 30%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business30 of 49
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market26 of 55
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise14 of 47
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
In edr · 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 Cybereason 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endpoint detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 26 of 55 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint at 30% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Endpoint protection | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 60 of 86 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint at 22% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Identity threat detection and response | Identity and access | 0% | 80 of 105 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Huntress Managed ITDR at 51% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Cybereason held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · EDR · 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 38 → 32 of 52
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 18 → 21 of 43
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDR | 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 38 → 26 of 55 |
| Endpoint protection | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 60 of 86, unchanged |
| ITDR | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 80 of 105, unchanged |
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 Cybereason 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 Cybereason 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 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative6 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained4 labelsNone
Negative3 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 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.
“focus on behavior-based detection and forensic depth, often with managed SOC services” GLM 4.7 FlashX · EDR · 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.
“went through years of financial turbulence, layoffs, and executive departures” Gemini 3.5 Flash · EDR · negative prompt · soft negative
“platform can be fiddly to get right, and support draws mixed reviews” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Cybereason, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cybereason was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Cybereason, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cybereason 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 Cybereason. 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 13 of the 14 answers that named Cybereason and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
sentinelone.com7
huntress.com6
acronis.com4
g2.com4
gartner.com4
learn.g2.com4
techrepublic.com4
cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com3
crowdstrike.com3
cybersecuritynews.com3
Forty-two of the forty-two domain citations in answers naming Cybereason came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Follow Cybereason
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
Cybereason is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Cybereason is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Proven endpoint protection, now with greater scale and expanded capabilities.
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Cybereason's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: cybereason.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 Cybereason'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 Cybereason, 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 Cybereason by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Cybereason 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 Cybereason, 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.