Every category where a model named Fidelis Deception 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
Deception technology	Security operations	0%	26 of 94	21%	14	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Fidelis Deception 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 Fidelis Deception across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

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	2	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	2	0	3
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Direct5 labels1

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative16 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 3 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.

“active defense/Deception* platforms (like Fidelis or Tsuru) designed to catch the attacker once they are in” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Deception · negative prompt · alternative

“Fidelis Deception is notable for its DeceptionGrid approach” Perplexity Sonar · Deception · comparative prompt · alternative

“Mid-market companies wanting network + endpoint coverage” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Deception · direct prompt · alternative

“Enterprises → Acalvio/Fidelis” Grok 4.1 Fast · Deception · 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.

“look out for architectural red flags when evaluating active deception platforms (such as those from Acalvio, CounterCraft, or Fidelis Security)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Deception · negative prompt · soft negative

“cost-prohibitive and require a dedicated team to manage” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Deception · budget prompt · soft negative

“stronger but typically far less budget-friendly” Perplexity Sonar · Deception · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Fidelis Deception, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Fidelis Deception was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Acalvio ShadowPlex32 of 3512Not among the top eight

CounterCraft13 of 352Not among the top eight

SentinelOne Singularity12 of 353Not among the top eight

Illusive Networks10 of 351Not among the top eight

Thinkst Canary10 of 351Not among the top eight

Fortinet FortiDeceptor10 of 350Not among the top eight

Zscaler Deception10 of 350Not among the top eight

Smokescreen8 of 350Not among the top eight

Attivo Networks7 of 351Not among the top eight

Tracebit6 of 351Not among the top eight

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 Fidelis Deception. 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 35 of the 35 answers that named Fidelis Deception and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

acalvio.com31

expertinsights.com23

guideflow.com19

linkedin.com18

cybersecuritynews.com15

g2.com14

devopsschool.com12

fidelissecurity.comYour site12

myhospitalnow.com11

csoonline.com10

153 of the 165 domain citations in answers naming Fidelis Deception came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

acalvio.com/preemptive-security/competitive-intelligence-cyber-deception23

expertinsights.com/network-security/best-deception-technology-companies23

guideflow.com/blog/deception-technology-software19

linkedin.com/pulse/cyber-deception-technology-cisos-guide-choosing-right-anand-akela-zbmlc17

cybersecuritynews.com/deception-tools15

acalvio.com/agentic-ai-security/deception-technology-solutions-an-enterprise-buyers-framew14

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-deception-technology-tools-features-pros-cons-comparison12

g2.com/categories/deception-technology12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

fidelissecurity.com ranks 4 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Fidelis Deception takes 0% of first choices and Thinkst Canary takes 37%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “deception technology platform”

Position for “deception technology platforms”

Searches for its name, Google: 10 a month (“fidelis deception”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 0 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 24,973 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 5,430 · 121 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 3,768
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

61 ads · 25 text, 20 image, 16 video · 6 shown in the last 30 days

First shown February 2025, as Fidelis Cybersecurity, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 42 in the year, 19 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 26 of 94 in deception

Segment leader

37%

Thinkst Canary

First choices: 1 across its categories
Named in: 35 answers
Its own site cited: in 35 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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 fidelissecurity.com

2,935

subdomains included

Content

512

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

44 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Glossary or explainer	216	29	2026-09-18	XDR, EDR
Report or ebook	143	5	2026-09-02	XDR, EDR
Comparison	45	4	2026-08-10	EDR, XDR
Conference or event	27	0	2026-05-22
Case study	26	0	2024-08-01
Podcast or video	17	3	2026-08-21	XDR
Template or tool	12	1	2026-09-01	XDR, CSPM
Blog	10	0	2026-05-06	XDR, CNAPP
Webinar or virtual event	9	0	2026-06-24	SASE
News or press	7	undated		XDR

Most recent

2026-09-18User activity monitoring uam glossary or explainer
2026-09-18Cyber asset inventory glossary or explainer
2026-09-15Asset risk glossary or explainer
2026-09-15Terrain mapping glossary or explainer
2026-09-15Cyber asset attack surface management caasm glossary or explainer
2026-09-15Prompt injection glossary or explainer

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page fidelissecurity.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. Of its titles that name a category, most name XDR (20); 0 name the category the models place it in. 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 Fidelis Deception

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

Fidelis 5Fidelis Security 1Fidelis/TrapX 1

Follow Fidelis Deception

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

Fidelis Deception is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: This proactive approach to threat detection and mitigation helps turn adversaries into targets. Fidelis Deception delivers high-fidelity alerts and events from decoys, AD credentials, poisoned data, and suspicious traffic.
fidelissecurity.com
For: MSSPs, Security System Integrators, Value-added Distributors, Channel Partners, And more
fidelissecurity.com/partners
Customers named: Children’s HospitalLyell ImmunopharmaLaudaMerit AwardsChildren's HospitalFortune 1000 Pharmaceutical CompanyFinancial Company
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting

What Fidelis Deception's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: fidelissecurity.com, fidelissecurity.com/security, fidelissecurity.com/solutions, fidelissecurity.com/resources/case-studies, fidelissecurity.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 Fidelis Deception'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 Fidelis Deception, 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 Fidelis Deception by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Fidelis Deception 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 Fidelis Deception, 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.