Every category where a model named FortiCNAPP 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
Cloud-native application protection	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	55 of 57	43%	14	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for FortiCNAPP 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 FortiCNAPP 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	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	2	2	5
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative13 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative37 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.

“FortiCNAPP (4.4/5 G2, multi-tenant friendly)” Grok 4.1 Fast · CNAPP · direct prompt · alternative

“Cost-Effective Option: Lacework” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CNAPP · paraphrase 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.

“I'd flag Lacework/FortiCNAPP and Aqua as the two with the most documented dissatisfaction” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CNAPP · negative prompt · hard negative

“*Status:* Likely Avoid.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CNAPP · negative prompt · hard negative

“If you are looking at Lacework, exercise caution and ensure you aren't being forced into buying Fortinet's broader, network-heavy Security Fabric” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CNAPP · negative prompt · soft negative

“Post-Fortinet buyout, users report alert surges (3x+), unclear roadmaps, and reduced actionable insights” Grok 4.1 Fast · CNAPP · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as FortiCNAPP, over the 37 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and FortiCNAPP was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Wiz34 of 3713Not in the top three

Prisma Cloud28 of 372Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender for Cloud27 of 377Not in the top three

Orca Security20 of 374Not in the top three

Aqua Security16 of 372Not in the top three

Sysdig15 of 371Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security11 of 370Not in the top three

Orca9 of 371Not in the top three

SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security6 of 370Not in the top three

Check Point CloudGuard5 of 371Not 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 FortiCNAPP. 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 32 of the 37 answers that named FortiCNAPP and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org21

expertinsights.com20

cybersecuritynews.com16

gbhackers.com16

cipherssecurity.com13

g2.com13

accuknox.com12

orca.security12

cloudsecurityalliance.org11

aikido.dev10

144 of the 144 domain citations in answers naming FortiCNAPP came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/cnapp-platforms-by-business-size-221

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-cloud-native-application-protection-platfo16

gbhackers.com/best-cnapp-compared16

cybersecuritynews.com/best-cnapp-platforms14

aikido.dev/blog/top-cloud-native-application-protection-platforms-cnapp10

accuknox.com/blog/cnapp-vendors9

cloudsecurityalliance.org/articles/six-factors-mid-sized-enterprises-should-look-for-when-9

gartner.com/reviews/market/cloud-native-application-protection-platforms9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as FortiCNAPP

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

Lacework 9FortiCNAPP / Lacework 1Lacework (now FortiCNAPP, acquired by Fortinet) 1Lacework (now Fortinet) 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 FortiCNAPP'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 FortiCNAPP, 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 forticnapp.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.