Every category where a model named Google Authenticator 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
Multi-factor authentication	Identity and access	4%	5 of 78	32%	22	criticized challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1	0	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	2	2
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1	1	3
Kimi K2	0	1	1	1	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative8 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained21 labels5

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative12 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative50 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 6 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.

“Start with authenticator apps, which offer good security at no cost” Claude Haiku 4.5 · MFA · budget prompt · first choice

“is Duo Free or Google Authenticator for under 10 users” Llama 4 Maverick · MFA · budget prompt · first choice

“Prefer authenticators that keep data local-only (like Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator...” Qwen 3.7 Flash · MFA · negative prompt · alternative

“Authenticator apps with TOTP (Google Authenticator, Authy, Microsoft Authenticator) - Better than SMS” Kimi K2 · MFA · negative 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.

“Applications like Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator generate 6-digit codes ... they are vulnerable to Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) phishing.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · MFA · negative prompt · soft negative

“it lacks advanced admin controls and backup features, which may be a limitation for some businesses” Mistral Small · MFA · budget prompt · soft negative

“Be Cautious With: TOTP Apps (e.g., Google Authenticator, Authy) ... but phishable” Grok 4.1 Fast · MFA · negative prompt · soft negative

“TOTP-based (NOT phishing-resistant). Codes can be phished via real-time proxy attacks.” Kimi K2 · MFA · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Google Authenticator, over the 50 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Google Authenticator was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cisco Duo36 of 5022Not in the top three

Microsoft Authenticator28 of 503Not in the top three

Microsoft Entra ID26 of 5010Not in the top three

YubiKey26 of 508Not in the top three

Authy25 of 501Not in the top three

Okta18 of 504Not in the top three

Auth010 of 500Not in the top three

Google Workspace 2-Step Verification7 of 501Not in the top three

Keycloak5 of 500Not in the top three

RSA SecurID5 of 500Not 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 Google Authenticator. 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 35 of the 50 answers that named Google Authenticator and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

techrepublic.com21

encomputers.com17

g2.com15

miniorange.com14

rippling.com14

automateed.com11

duo.com11

aimultiple.com10

blog.cybelesoft.com10

plivo.com10

133 of the 133 domain citations in answers naming Google Authenticator came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

techrepublic.com/article/best-multi-factor-authentication-solutions21

encomputers.com/2024/05/best-multi-factor-authentication-small-businesses17

g2.com/discussions/what-is-the-most-affordable-mfa-solution-for-smbs14

rippling.com/blog/mfa-providers14

automateed.com/affordable-mfa-alternatives11

blog.cybelesoft.com/cost-effective-mfa-for-small-business10

miniorange.com/blog/cost-effective-mfa-for-small-business10

plivo.com/blog/best-multi-factor-authentication-solutions-for-business10

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Google Authenticator

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

Google Authenticator/Authy 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 Google Authenticator'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 Google Authenticator, 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 google.dev 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.