Every category where a model named Exabeam 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
SIEM platforms	Security operations	0%	13 of 49	15%	13	accepted challenger
Managed detection and response	Security operations	0%	35 of 45	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response at 39%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Exabeam yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Exabeam across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	2
Mistral Small	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct8 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative20 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labels1

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative9 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Choose Exabeam Fusion SIEM if: - You need strong UEBA and threat hunting capabilities.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · SIEM · comparative prompt · alternative

“praised for its user behavior analytics (UEBA) and automation” Mistral Small · SIEM · 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.

“Avoid for new buys: ... Exabeam/LogRhythm if you can't afford heavy tuning/admin staff.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · SIEM · negative prompt · hard negative

“LogRhythm and Exabeam completed a major merger... it takes years to consolidate their underlying codebases, roadmaps, and support divisions.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SIEM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Exabeam, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Exabeam was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Sentinel41 of 4810Not in the top three

IBM QRadar37 of 480Not in the top three

Splunk Enterprise Security32 of 4812Not in the top three

Elastic Security27 of 481Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSIAM25 of 482Not in the top three

Securonix24 of 480Not in the top three

Google Security Operations22 of 481Not in the top three

LogRhythm20 of 480Not in the top three

Sumo Logic15 of 480Not in the top three

Rapid7 InsightIDR12 of 481Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 Exabeam. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 38 of the 48 answers that named Exabeam and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

underdefense.com29

gartner.com22

exabeam.comYour site21

paloaltonetworks.com21

expertinsights.com17

solutionsreview.com14

manageengine.com11

splunk.com11

decryptiondigest.com10

subrosacyber.com10

145 of the 166 domain citations in answers naming Exabeam came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

underdefense.com/blog/siem-solutions-comparison28

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/siem-tools-comparison20

expertinsights.com/security-operations/the-top-siem-solutions17

exabeam.com/explainers/siem-tools/siem-buyers-guide16

gartner.com/reviews/market/security-information-event-management16

solutionsreview.com/security-information-event-management/whats-changed-2024-gartner-magic13

manageengine.com/log-management/top-siem-tools.html11

exabeam.com/explainers/siem-tools/siem-solutions10

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Exabeam

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

Exabeam Fusion SIEM 3Exabeam Fusion 1

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 Exabeam'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 Exabeam, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at exabeam.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.