Index › Vendors › FortiSIEM · September 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

FortiSIEM

6Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

3Categories

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

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. FortiSIEM was named 3 times in Logs and 2 other categories, where Datadog Log Management led with 20%. 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-market52 of 59

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In logs · 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 FortiSIEM 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
Log management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	52 of 59	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%
SIEM platforms	Security operations	0%	34 of 49	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Sentinel at 41%
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	123 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 FortiSIEM 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 FortiSIEM across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“Avoid this platform if you are running unpatched versions or if your deployment cannot be updated quickly.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Threat intel · negative prompt · hard negative

“G2 scores lag in log management (e.g., FortiSIEM ~8.7/10 vs. category avg 9.1)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Logs · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as FortiSIEM, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and FortiSIEM was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Sentinel5 of 61Not in the top three

Elastic Security4 of 61Not in the top three

Splunk Enterprise Security4 of 61Not in the top three

Exabeam4 of 60Not in the top three

IBM QRadar4 of 60Not in the top three

LogRhythm4 of 60Not in the top three

Securonix4 of 60Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSIAM3 of 61Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Next-Gen SIEM2 of 60Not in the top three

Devo2 of 60Not 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 FortiSIEM. 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 6 of the 6 answers that named FortiSIEM and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

underdefense.com5

gartner.com4

reddit.com4

solutionsreview.com4

paloaltonetworks.com3

aspcstorageprd.blob.core.windows.net2

cyberinfos.in2

decryptiondigest.com2

exabeam.com2

g2.com2

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

Pages cited

solutionsreview.com/security-information-event-management/whats-changed-2024-gartner-magic4

underdefense.com/blog/siem-solutions-comparison4

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/siem-tools-comparison3

aspcstorageprd.blob.core.windows.net/reports/splunk/Gartner_SIEM_2024_Reprint.pdf2

decryptiondigest.com/blog/best-siem-platforms-20262

exabeam.com/explainers/siem-tools/siem-buyers-guide2

gartner.com/reviews/market/security-information-event-management2

irp.cdn-website.com/9b58fcac/files/uploaded/80145649104.pdf2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as FortiSIEM

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

Fortinet FortiSIEM 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 FortiSIEM'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 FortiSIEM, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.