Every category where a model named Google 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%	26 of 128	0%	5	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 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 Threat Intelligence across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	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	2	0	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labels2

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative21 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“commercial leaders like CrowdStrike Falcon X or Google Threat Intelligence (post-Mandiant)” Grok 4.1 Fast · Threat intel · negative prompt · alternative

“Frontline IR data + VirusTotal; deep technical analysis, Gemini AI.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Threat intel · comparative prompt · alternative

“Need APT/nation-state attribution → Mandiant/Google” Kimi K2 · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Google Threat Intelligence, over the 21 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Google Threat Intelligence was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Recorded Future21 of 2111Not in the top three

ThreatConnect15 of 210Not in the top three

Anomali ThreatStream10 of 210Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Adversary Intelligence9 of 211Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Intelligence7 of 210Not in the top three

Cyble Vision6 of 210Not in the top three

Flashpoint6 of 210Not in the top three

Cyware5 of 211Not in the top three

Anomali4 of 210Not in the top three

MISP4 of 210Not 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 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 19 of the 21 answers that named Google Threat Intelligence and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

analyticsinsight.net15

cyware.com11

tech-insider.org11

esecurityplanet.com10

cyble.com9

upguard.com8

decryptiondigest.com7

learn.g2.com7

peerspot.com7

b2breviews.com6

Ninety-one of the ninety-one domain citations in answers naming Google Threat Intelligence came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/best-threat-intelligence-platforms14

tech-insider.org/recorded-future-vs-gti-vs-threatconnect-202611

cyware.com/blog/top-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-solutions10

cyble.com/knowledge-hub/top-best-threat-intelligence-platforms9

esecurityplanet.com/products/threat-intelligence-platforms9

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/10-best-threat-intelligence-platforms-in-20267

learn.g2.com/best-threat-intelligence-tools7

upguard.com/blog/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-vendors7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Google Threat Intelligence

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

Google Threat Intelligence (GTI) 1Google Threat Intelligence (Mandiant + VirusTotal) 1Mandiant (Google Cloud) / Google Threat Intelligence 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 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 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.