Every category where a model named Cyberhaven 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
Insider risk management	Security operations	2%	11 of 84	20%	10	accepted challenger
Data loss prevention	Security operations	0%	19 of 89	0%	12	accepted challenger	▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
AI security platforms	Security operations	0%	62 of 233	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by SentinelOne Singularity at 11%
Data security posture management	Security operations	0%	92 of 105	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview at 18%
Digital risk protection	Security operations	0%	48 of 86	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by UpGuard BreachSight at 22%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Cyberhaven 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 Cyberhaven 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	2	1	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	2	4	2	1	9
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	0	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	1	2	0	3
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	2	1	4
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	1	0	0	1
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

Direct10 labels4

Paraphrase10 labels1

Comparative23 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained4 labels1

Scale-constrained12 labels2

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative70 labels in all, every segment counted; 8 of the 11 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 goal is protecting IP (source code, CAD drawings, customer lists): Go with Cyberhaven.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Insider risk · comparative prompt · first choice

“Best Overall for SaaS-First & IP-Heavy Companies: Cyberhaven (Data Detection & Response)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Insider risk · direct prompt · first choice

“Unifies AI security with data security posture management (DSPM), DLP, and insider risk management.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · AI security · comparative prompt · alternative

“Pick: Cyberhaven ... uses machine learning to classify and block sensitive data instantly.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DRP · direct 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.

“DLP vendors like CyberHaven, Forcepoint, Digital Guardian, and McAfee miss the discovery, posture management” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DSPM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Potential concerns: Lacks breadth of cross-domain behavioral coverage and integration; may require additional tools” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Insider risk · negative prompt · soft negative

“usually cost-prohibitive for companies on a limited budget, often starting at $25,000 to $75,000+ per year” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Insider risk · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Cyberhaven, over the 70 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cyberhaven was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Purview DLP35 of 708Not among the top eight

Forcepoint DLP35 of 703Not among the top eight

Symantec Data Loss Prevention30 of 702Not among the top eight

Netskope DLP24 of 700Not among the top eight

Nightfall AI21 of 701Not among the top eight

Proofpoint Enterprise DLP15 of 701Not among the top eight

Zscaler Internet Access15 of 700Not among the top eight

Varonis Data Security Platform14 of 700Not among the top eight

Safetica13 of 702Not among the top eight

Teramind12 of 701Compare →

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 Cyberhaven. 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 68 of the 70 answers that named Cyberhaven and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberhaven.comYour site45

strac.io30

forcepoint.com29

gartner.com25

currentware.com22

nightfall.ai21

underdefense.com20

venn.com16

checkpoint.com15

miniorange.com15

193 of the 238 domain citations in answers naming Cyberhaven came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

currentware.com/blog/best-data-loss-prevention-software22

underdefense.com/blog/dlp-solutions17

cyberhaven.com/blog/top-insider-threat-software16

forcepoint.com/blog/insights/best-dlp-software15

strac.io/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-dlp-tools15

learn.g2.com/best-data-loss-prevention-software13

miniorange.com/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-tools13

strac.io/blog/top-7-data-loss-prevention-solutions-comparison-and-dlp-evaluation-checklist13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

cyberhaven.com ranks 6 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Cyberhaven takes 2% of first choices and Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management takes 22%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “insider risk management tool”

Position for “insider risk management tools”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 2,900 a month (“cyberhaven”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 54 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 13,999 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 2,684 · 66 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 3,109
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

73 ads · 47 text, 26 image · 22 shown in the last 30 days

First shown October 2024, as Cyberhaven, Inc., verified. Ads started 2025-10 to 2026-09: 57 in the year, 16 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 11 of 84 in insider risk

Segment leader

22%

Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management

First choices: 8 across its categories
Named in: 70 answers
Its own site cited: in 68 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 cyberhaven.com

571

subdomains included

Content

410

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

14 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	175	9	2026-09-23	DLP, SASE
Glossary or explainer	64	1	2026-07-20	SIEM, DLP
Report or ebook	60	1	2026-09-21	DLP
News or press	38	5	2026-08-19	DLP
Comparison	32	9	2026-09-25	DLP, CSPM
Webinar or virtual event	22	0	2026-06-10	DLP
Case study	10	0	2024-03-01
Conference or event	7	2	2026-10-06
Template or tool	2	1	2026-07-07

Most recent

2026-10-06Sec tor conference or event
2026-09-25Ai security vs legacy dlp comparison
2026-09-23Data lineage security blog
2026-09-21Ai agent data lineage report or ebook
2026-09-18Departing employee exfiltration blog
2026-09-17Fragment new attack surface blog

Events in person

Last twelve months

October 6, 2026 to October 8, 2026Cyberhaven at SecTor 2026Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto, CA · sponsored
June 3, 2026Private CISO DinnerThe Ned, London, GB · hosted
June 2, 2026 to June 4, 2026Cyberhaven at Infosecurity Europe 2026ExCeL London, London, GB · exhibited
June 2, 2026 to June 3, 2026The Breakaway at InfosecTapa Tapa, London, GB · sponsored
June 1, 2026 to June 3, 2026Cyberhaven at Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2026Gaylord National Resort, National Harbor, US · exhibited

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

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page cyberhaven.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 Cyberhaven

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

CyberHaven 1Cyberhaven (Data Detection & Response) 1

Follow Cyberhaven

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

Cyberhaven is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Data Security For The Agentic Enterprise
cyberhaven.com
For: enterprise
cyberhaven.com
Integrations claimed: 6 cyberhaven.com
Certifications: CCPAGDPRISO/IEC 27001:2022ISO/IEC 27017:2015ISO/IEC 27701:2019ISO/IEC 42001:2023PCI DSS v4.0.1SOC 2 Type 2
Hosting: USWorldwide
Customers named: Mission AustraliaCooleyNavanMotorolaAxos BankBioIVTGlobal Law FirmPlaid
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial

What Cyberhaven's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: cyberhaven.com, trust.cyberhaven.com, cyberhaven.com/product/dspm, cyberhaven.com/customers, cyberhaven.com/partners. 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 Cyberhaven'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 Cyberhaven, 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 Cyberhaven by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Cyberhaven 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 Cyberhaven, 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.