Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 106 → 107 of 114
1 category · RankedGoogle Threat Intelligence
41Judge labels
0First choices
10Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in Threat intel for mid-market buyers
Rank 25 of 119 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 18% of its 11 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Google Threat Intelligence →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business119 of 126
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market25 of 119
0%11 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise12 of 83
0%27 labels
accepted challenger
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 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intelligence platforms | Security operations | 0% | 25 of 119 | 18% | 11 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Google Threat Intelligence held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Threat intel · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 23 → 25 of 111
Enterprise▼−5Since September 2026: 5% → 0%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 5% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 6 pointsRank 3 → 12 of 78
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intel | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 23 → 25 of 119 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Google Threat Intelligence across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Google Threat Intelligence across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 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
Direct7 labelsNone
Paraphrase2 labelsNone
Comparative18 labelsNone
Budget-constrained7 labelsNone
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative6 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative41 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 Threat Intelligence should be chosen when APT-grade validated intelligence and executive reporting are the priority.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Threat intel · comparative prompt · alternative
“Leader — Mandiant+VirusTotal|Organizations wanting incident-grade adversary intelligence and best-in-class malware analysis” Muse Glimmer 30B · Threat intel · comparative prompt · alternative
“Tier 1: Enterprise Leaders ... Best for: Deep adversary investigation and incident-response-backed intelligence” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Threat intel · comparative prompt · alternative
“incredibly strong at providing deep, human-curated attribution on Advanced Persistent Threats” Gemini 3.5 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.
“cited as a platform to be cautious about because of high pricing, ecosystem lock-in, and limited continuous external monitoring” Perplexity Sonar · Threat intel · negative prompt · hard negative
“has been noted for weak integration outside the Google security stack. If you're not all-in on Google SecOps, this could become a trap.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Threat intel · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Google Threat Intelligence, over the 41 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.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Google Threat Intelligence, over the 41 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.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 41 of the 41 answers that named Google Threat Intelligence and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
analyticsinsight.net27
bitsight.com17
cyware.com17
it-ai-index.com17
recordedfuture.com17
csoonline.com15
flashpoint.io14
upguard.com14
esecurityplanet.com13
underdefense.com13
164 of the 164 domain citations in answers naming Google Threat Intelligence came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
google.dev is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Google Threat Intelligence takes 0% of first choices and MISP takes 12%.ShowHide
Search and answers
google.dev is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Google Threat Intelligence takes 0% of first choices and MISP takes 12%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “threat intelligence platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “threat intelligence platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 1,000 a month (“google threat intelligence”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 21 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 881,346 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 22,650 · 2,977 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 29,239
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 25 of 119 in threat intel
Segment leader
12%
MISP
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 41 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 41 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
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 Mandiant 1Google Mandiant Threat Intelligence 1Google Threat Intelligence (Mandiant + VirusTotal) 1Google Threat Intelligence (Mandiant Advantage + VirusTotal + Gemini) 1Google Threat Intelligence (Mandiant) 1Google Threat Intelligence (Mandiant/VirusTotal) 1Google Threat Intelligence (formerly Mandiant) 1Google Threat Intelligence (incorporating Mandiant) 1Google Threat Intelligence / Mandiant 1Mandiant / Google Threat Intelligence 1
Follow Google Threat Intelligence
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
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.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Google Threat Intelligence by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Google Threat Intelligence is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Google Threat Intelligence, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.