IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › FireEye · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

FireEye

2Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

1 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. FireEye was named 1 time in Threat intel, where NordStellar led with 13%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market114 of 128

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In threat intel · 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 FireEye 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
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	114 of 128	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by NordStellar at 13%

Movement

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“their commercial feeds can be incredibly aggressive. Integrating their blocklists into firewalls without rigorous testing can result in blocking legitimate SaaS traffic” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Threat intel · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as FireEye, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and FireEye was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Abuse.ch1 of 21Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender XDR1 of 21Not in the top three

AlienVault OTX1 of 20Not in the top three

Bitdefender1 of 20Not in the top three

Cisco XDR1 of 20Not in the top three

CrowdStrike1 of 20Not in the top three

Elastic SIEM/XDR1 of 20Not in the top three

Emerging Threats1 of 20Not in the top three

IBM QRadar1 of 20Not in the top three

MISP Community1 of 20Not 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 FireEye. 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 1 of the 2 answers that named FireEye and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

aimultiple.com1

capterra.com1

channelpronetwork.com1

cyberpress.org1

cybersecuritynews.com1

esecurityplanet.com1

g2.com1

gbhackers.com1

hexnode.com1

kamin.us1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming FireEye came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

aimultiple.com/xdr-solutions1

capterra.com/p/219687/Microsoft-365-Defender/reviews1

channelpronetwork.com/2025/12/30/xdr-selection-guide1

cyberpress.org/edr-solutions-by-business-size1

cyberpress.org/xdr-platforms-by-business-size1

cybersecuritynews.com/best-edr-solutions1

esecurityplanet.com/products/xdr-security-solutions1

g2.com/products/microsoft-defender-xdr/reviews1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as FireEye

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

FireEye (Mandiant) 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 FireEye'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 FireEye, 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 fireeye.ai 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.