Every category where a model named Guardicore 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
Deception technology	Security operations	0%	27 of 94	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Thinkst Canary at 37%
Microsegmentation	Network and edge	0%	94 of 94	80%	5	under 10 labels · led by ColorTokens Xshield at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Guardicore yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Guardicore across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	1	2
GPT-6 Luna	0	1	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	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

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labels2

Negative7 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative23 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.

“Micro-segmentation + deception combo? → Guardicore/Zeus (Akamai)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Deception · comparative prompt · alternative

“Combines micro-segmentation with deception” MiniMax M2.5 · Deception · 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.

“host agent-based solutions (like some older versions of Illumio, Guardicore, ColorTokens, or TrueFort) can be effective, they require deploying and maintaining agents on every workload” Mistral Small · Microsegmentation · negative prompt · soft negative

“While technologies like Illumio or Guardicore use this effectively, you should be cautious if your environment has strict stability requirements” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Microsegmentation · negative prompt · soft negative

“Guardicore's primary enforcement relies on host-based agents, so OT and IoT environments with unmanaged devices need supplemental tooling” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Microsegmentation · negative prompt · soft negative

“While host agent solutions (like Illumio, Guardicore, ColorTokens, TrueFort) work anywhere, they introduce operational overhead” MiniMax M2.5 · Microsegmentation · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Guardicore, over the 23 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Guardicore was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Illumio Segmentation12 of 233Not among the top eight

VMware NSX8 of 230Not among the top eight

Cisco Secure Workload6 of 230Not among the top eight

Acalvio ShadowPlex5 of 232Not among the top eight

Attivo Networks5 of 232Not among the top eight

ColorTokens Xshield5 of 232Not among the top eight

Illusive Networks5 of 230Not among the top eight

Faddom3 of 232Not among the top eight

AWS Security Groups3 of 231Not among the top eight

Azure Network Security Groups3 of 231Not among the top eight

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 Guardicore. 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 19 of the 23 answers that named Guardicore and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cybersecuritynews.com8

zeronetworks.com7

akamai.com6

cyberpress.org6

linkedin.com6

acalvio.com5

elisity.com5

emergenresearch.com5

forrester.com5

g2.com5

Fifty-eight of the fifty-eight domain citations in answers naming Guardicore came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cybersecuritynews.com/best-microsegmentation-tools7

cyberpress.org/microsegmentation-tools-by-business-size6

emergenresearch.com/blog/top-10-companies-in-deception-technology-market5

elisity.com/blog/top-microsegmentation-solutions4

gartner.com/reviews/market/microsegmentation4

growthmarketreports.com/report/deception-technology-market4

zeronetworks.com/blog/modern-vs-legacy-microsegmentation-what-to-look-for-in-todays-top-so4

zeronetworks.com/files/buyers-guides/zero-networks-microsegmentation-buyers-guide.pdf4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

guard.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Guardicore takes 0% of first choices and Thinkst Canary takes 37%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “deception technology platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “deception technology platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 1,000 a month (“guardicore”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 38 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 55,790 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 6,399 · 328 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 2,862
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

120+ ads · 85 text, 35 video · 120 shown in the last 30 days

First shown April 2024, as Guardio Ltd., verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 115 in the year, 5 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 27 of 94 in deception

Segment leader

37%

Thinkst Canary

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 23 answers
Its own site cited: in 19 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on guard.io

1,170

subdomains included

Content

1,061

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Categories named
Blog	949	undated	CDN, MFA
Report or ebook	56	undated
Glossary or explainer	40	undated	Endpoint protection
Comparison	9	undated
Template or tool	5	undated
News or press	2	undated

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page guard.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as Guardicore

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

Guardicore (Akamai) 2Guardicore (now Akamai) 1Guardicore/Zeus 1

Follow Guardicore

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.

The company

Guardicore is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Free plan or trial: Get your free Guardio security scan today. guard.io
Not stated on the pages read: Positioning, who it is for, price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers

What Guardicore's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: guard.io, guard.io/plans. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Guardicore'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 Guardicore, 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 Guardicore by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Guardicore 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 Guardicore, 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.