IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Google SecOps · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Google SecOps

2Judge 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

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Google SecOps was named 1 time in Logs, 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-market32 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 Google SecOps 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%	32 of 59	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Datadog Log Management at 20%

Movement

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

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

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

“Google SecOps (high G2 ratings ~9.3–9.7/10)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Logs · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Google SecOps, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Google SecOps was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Recorded Future1 of 21Not in the top three

Coralogix1 of 20Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Adversary Intelligence1 of 20Not in the top three

Datadog Cloud SIEM1 of 20Not in the top three

Datadog Log Management1 of 20Not in the top three

Elastic Stack1 of 20Not in the top three

FortiSIEM1 of 20Not in the top three

Google Threat Intelligence1 of 20Not in the top three

Graylog1 of 20Not in the top three

ManageEngine Log3601 of 20Not 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 SecOps. 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 2 of the 2 answers that named Google SecOps and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

underdefense.com2

aimultiple.com1

assets.recordedfuture.com1

assets.virustotal.com1

aws.amazon.com1

blogs.bmc.com1

cipherssecurity.com1

cloud.google.com1

coralogix.com1

cribl.io1

Eleven of the eleven domain citations in answers naming Google SecOps came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

aimultiple.com/siem-tools1

assets.recordedfuture.com/Pricing%20PDF/2026_0319%20-%20Pricing.pdf1

assets.recordedfuture.com/Pricing%20PDF/2026_0428%20-%20Recorded%20Future%20Packages%20&am1

assets.virustotal.com/google-ti-packages-pricing.pdf1

aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-ozj26tsqlb5jo1

blogs.bmc.com/gartner-magic-quadrant-siem1

cipherssecurity.com/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-20261

cloud.google.com/security/products/threat-intelligence1

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 SecOps'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 SecOps, 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.