IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence

3Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

2 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence was named 2 times 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-market104 of 128

under the label threshold

Enterprise49 of 105

under the label threshold

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 Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence 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%	104 of 128	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by NordStellar at 13%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	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	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.

“Need nation-state attribution and have budget? Mandiant.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Threat intel · comparative 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.

“Strong for attribution, but more enterprise-priced” MiniMax M2.5 · Threat intel · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Recorded Future3 of 32Not in the top three

Anomali ThreatStream3 of 30Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Adversary Intelligence2 of 30Not in the top three

Cyware2 of 30Not in the top three

Flashpoint2 of 30Not in the top three

MISP2 of 30Not in the top three

ThreatConnect2 of 30Not in the top three

Rapid7 Threat Command1 of 31Not in the top three

Bitsight1 of 30Not in the top three

CloudSEK1 of 30Not 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 Mandiant Threat Intelligence. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

analyticsinsight.net3

cyware.com2

esecurityplanet.com2

guptadeepak.com2

learn.g2.com2

upguard.com2

anomali.com1

b2breviews.com1

bitsight.com1

codeby.net1

Seventeen of the seventeen domain citations in answers naming Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/best-threat-intelligence-platforms2

cyware.com/blog/top-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-solutions2

esecurityplanet.com/products/threat-intelligence-platforms2

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-threat-intelligence-platforms2

learn.g2.com/best-threat-intelligence-tools2

upguard.com/blog/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-vendors2

analyticsinsight.net/amp/story/cybersecurity/10-best-threat-intelligence-platforms-in-20261

analyticsinsight.net/amp/story/cybersecurity/best-threat-intelligence-platforms1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 Mandiant Threat Intelligence'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 Mandiant Threat Intelligence, 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.