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 → 33 of 35
2 categories · Named, not rankedDDoS-Guard
15Judge labels
0First choices
11Negative labels
8 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
8 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. DDoS-Guard was named 8 times in DDoS and 1 other category, where Cloudflare led with 82%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business36 of 38
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market58 of 58
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise34 of 41
0%1 label
under the label threshold
In ddos · 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 DDoS-Guard 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DDoS protection | Network and edge | 0% | 58 of 58 | 71% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare at 82% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Content delivery networks | Network and edge | 0% | 37 of 49 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare at 68% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, DDoS-Guard held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · DDoS · 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 46 → 52 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 27 → 34 of 41
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DDoS | 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 46 → 58 of 58 |
| CDN | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 37 of 49, 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 DDoS-Guard 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 DDoS-Guard 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative12 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 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.
“Budget-friendly, flat-rate pricing ... Limited extra features (no CDN)” MiniMax M2.5 · DDoS · 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.
“"Stay away from them; at best, you will simply lose $100." Multiple user-review sites report serious service and policy concerns.” Muse Glimmer 30B · DDoS · negative prompt · hard negative
“DDoS-Guard: Why to avoid: DDoS-Guard is a Russian-based digital infrastructure provider... notorious reputation” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DDoS · negative prompt · hard negative
“Based in Russia, known to ignore DMCA takedown requests and other abuse complaints” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CDN · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid DDoS-Guard entirely - the ethical and legal concerns are significant” Kimi K2 · DDoS · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as DDoS-Guard, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and DDoS-Guard was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as DDoS-Guard, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and DDoS-Guard 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 DDoS-Guard. 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 14 of the 15 answers that named DDoS-Guard and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
esecurityplanet.com10
trustpilot.com10
cyberpress.org9
radware.com8
g2.com7
huge-networks.com6
indusface.com6
sitejabber.com6
flowtriq.com5
github.com5
Seventy-two of the seventy-two domain citations in answers naming DDoS-Guard came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
ddos-guard.net ranks 4 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, DDoS-Guard takes 0% of first choices and Cloudflare takes 82%.ShowHide
Search and answers
ddos-guard.net ranks 4 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, DDoS-Guard takes 0% of first choices and Cloudflare takes 82%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “ddos protection service”
5
Position for “ddos protection services”
4
- Searches for its name, Google
- 1,000 a month (“ddos-guard”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 72 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 7,285 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,976 · 79 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,979
- Paid Google search
- 1 searches its ads show for, about 2 clicks and $0 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 58 of 58 in ddos
Segment leader
82%
Cloudflare
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 15 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 14 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 ddos-guard.net
87
subdomains included
Content
77
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 72 | undated | DDoS, CDN | ||
| Template or tool | 2 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 2 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 1 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page ddos-guard.net 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 DDoS-Guard
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as DDoS-Guard; a claim can dispute any of them.
DDoS-Guard (ddos-guard.net) 1ddos-guard.net / DDoS-Guard 1
Follow DDoS-Guard
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
DDoS-Guard is its own company.ShowHide
The company
DDoS-Guard is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Reliable DDoS Protection & Mitigation
- For
- companies and businesses of any level
- Price stated
- all at a fixed price with no hidden fees ddos-guard.net
- Hosting
- EuropeAmericaAsia
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, customers
What DDoS-Guard's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: ddos-guard.net. 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 DDoS-Guard'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 DDoS-Guard, 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 DDoS-Guard by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where DDoS-Guard 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 DDoS-Guard, 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.