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 53 → 71 of 77
2 categories · RankedDigital Guardian
41Judge labels
0First choices
13Negative labels
12 / 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.
Best standing
0% in DLP for mid-market buyers
Rank 22 of 89 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 24% of its 17 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Digital Guardian →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business75 of 82
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market22 of 89
0%17 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise13 of 60
0%14 labels
accepted challenger
In dlp · 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 Digital Guardian 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data loss prevention | Security operations | 0% | 22 of 89 | 24% | 17 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data security posture management | Security operations | 0% | 93 of 105 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview at 18% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Digital Guardian held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · DLP · 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 17 → 20 of 80
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 12 → 13 of 55
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DLP | 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 17 → 22 of 89 |
| DSPM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 93 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 Digital Guardian 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 Digital Guardian 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 | 1 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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
Direct5 labelsNone
Paraphrase7 labelsNone
Comparative12 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained7 labelsNone
Negative9 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative41 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.
“Digital Guardian offers a DLP solution with a focus on deep endpoint visibility, threat detection, and forensic analysis” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose Forcepoint or Digital Guardian for their behavioral monitoring capabilities.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for: endpoint-first control, BYOD and device control, especially USB/removable media.” Muse Glimmer 30B · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for: Organizations needing endpoint-focused DLP” MiniMax M2.5 · DLP · 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.
“Slow performance... Complex policy creation... High cost... "Our deployed Digital Guardian deployment was failing miserably."” Kimi K2 · DLP · negative prompt · hard negative
“DLP vendors like CyberHaven, Forcepoint, Digital Guardian, and McAfee miss the discovery, posture management” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DSPM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Do not buy an enterprise heavyweight (like Digital Guardian or older Symantec versions)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DLP · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“far easier to manage and much cheaper than enterprise suites like Digital Guardian” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DLP · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Digital Guardian, over the 41 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Digital Guardian was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Digital Guardian, over the 41 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Digital Guardian 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 Digital Guardian. 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 33 of the 41 answers that named Digital Guardian and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
strac.io28
forcepoint.com18
underdefense.com17
checkpoint.com15
currentware.com15
gartner.com15
cyberhaven.com13
miniorange.com13
learn.g2.com12
venn.com11
157 of the 157 domain citations in answers naming Digital Guardian came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
digitalguardian.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Digital Guardian takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Purview DLP takes 46%.ShowHide
Search and answers
digitalguardian.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Digital Guardian takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Purview DLP takes 46%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “data loss prevention platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “data loss prevention platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 480 a month (“digital guardian”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 55 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 8 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 18 · 0 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 9,846
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 22 of 89 in DLP
Segment leader
46%
Microsoft Purview DLP
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 41 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 33 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 digitalguardian.com
5,282
subdomains included
Content
3,329
counted in the table below
Documentation
6
Product · Integration
347 · 11
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 2,245 | undated | DLP, MFA | ||
| Report or ebook | 371 | undated | DLP, Email security | ||
| News or press | 368 | undated | DLP, Email security | ||
| Podcast or video | 142 | undated | DLP, PAM | ||
| Case study | 85 | undated | DLP, EDR | ||
| Comparison | 40 | undated | DLP, SASE | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 38 | undated | ZTNA | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 19 | undated | DLP | ||
| Template or tool | 13 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 8 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page digitalguardian.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 Digital Guardian
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Digital Guardian; a claim can dispute any of them.
Digital Guardian (Fortra) 2Digital Guardian (DLP + Endpoint) 1Digital Guardian / Fortra 1Digital Guardian / Fortra DLP 1
Follow Digital Guardian
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
Digital Guardian is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Digital Guardian is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The most comprehensive DLP, from endpoint to cloud
- For
- CISO
- Price stated
- predictable pricing digitalguardian.com
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Digital Guardian's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: digitalguardian.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 Digital Guardian'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 Digital Guardian, 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 Digital Guardian by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Digital Guardian 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 Digital Guardian, 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.