Every category where a model named FortiNAC 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
Network access control	Network and edge	0%	25 of 111	18%	11	accepted challenger
Zero trust network access	Network and edge	0%	61 of 66	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Twingate at 39%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for FortiNAC 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 FortiNAC 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	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	2	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	2	3
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	2	0	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-6 Luna	2	0	0	2
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Direct7 labelsNone

Paraphrase12 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative34 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.

“Solid zero-trust option if you're already standardized on Fortinet firewalls and security fabric. Less ideal as a standalone purchase” Kimi K2 · NAC · direct prompt · alternative

“If your company is already heavily invested in the Fortinet security fabric, then FortiNAC is the better fit.” GPT-5.4 mini · NAC · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“if you're heavily invested in Fortinet or have significant IoT/OT visibility and response needs” GPT-6 Luna · NAC · direct prompt · alternative

“evaluate FortiNAC. Fortinet documents extensive third-party device support” GPT-6 Luna · NAC · 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.

“Trust concerns: These frequent vulnerabilities have damaged vendor trust” MiniMax M2.5 · ZTNA · negative prompt · soft negative

“Robust for IoT/OT, but more enterprise/SMB edge, higher complexity.” Grok 4.1 Fast · NAC · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Can be complex/pricey for pure mid-market.” Grok 4.1 Fast · NAC · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as FortiNAC, over the 34 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and FortiNAC was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Portnox Cloud18 of 3413Not among the top eight

Cisco ISE18 of 341Not among the top eight

Aruba ClearPass17 of 341Not among the top eight

Forescout9 of 340Not among the top eight

PacketFence7 of 342Not among the top eight

Cisco Identity Services Engine5 of 343Not among the top eight

Portnox CLEAR4 of 344Not among the top eight

HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass4 of 341Not among the top eight

macmon NAC4 of 340Not among the top eight

Juniper Mist Access Assurance3 of 340Not 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 FortiNAC. 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 34 of the 34 answers that named FortiNAC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

portnox.com20

cyberpress.org18

us.fitgap.com16

peerspot.com15

g2.com14

esecurityplanet.com13

comparitech.com11

cybersecuritynews.com11

capterra.com10

fortinet.com10

No domain is on file for FortiNAC, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/nac-solutions-by-business-size18

esecurityplanet.com/products/network-access-control-solutions13

comparitech.com/net-admin/network-access-control-software11

cybersecuritynews.com/best-nac-solutions11

us.fitgap.com/search/network-access-control-software/small-business10

capterra.com/network-access-control-software/s/small-businesses9

cloudnuro.ai/blog/top-10-network-access-control-nac-solutions-for-zero-trust-implementatio9

fortinet.com/products/network-access-control9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where FortiNAC stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 720 a month (“fortinac”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 44 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 25 of 111 in NAC

Segment leader

35%

Portnox Cloud

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 34 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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.

Names read as FortiNAC

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

FortiNAC (Fortinet) 1Fortinet FortiSASE/FortiNAC 1

Follow FortiNAC

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.

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 FortiNAC'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 FortiNAC, 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 FortiNAC by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where FortiNAC 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 FortiNAC, 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.