IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › HYPR · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

HYPR

16Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

9 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. HYPR was named 6 times in MFA and 1 other category, where Cisco Duo led with 42%. 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-market16 of 78

under the label threshold

Enterprise11 of 48

under the label threshold

In mfa · 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 HYPR 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
Multi-factor authentication	Identity and access	0%	16 of 78	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Cisco Duo at 42%
Customer identity and access management	Identity and access	0%	55 of 74	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Auth0 at 22%

Movement

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

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative13 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative16 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.

“Going fully passwordless \u2192 HYPR or Beyond Identity.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · MFA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Eliminate passwords entirely | HYPR or Beyond Identity” Kimi K2 · MFA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Passwordless transition: HYPR or Beyond Identity” MiniMax M2.5 · MFA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for passwordless workforce initiatives.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · MFA · 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.

“Avoid if you need social logins (Google/Facebook), consent management, or multi-tenant architectures. It is a specialized authentication layer, not a full CIAM suite.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CIAM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as HYPR, over the 16 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and HYPR was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cisco Duo12 of 168Not in the top three

YubiKey12 of 162Not in the top three

Okta11 of 165Not in the top three

RSA SecurID11 of 160Not in the top three

Ping Identity10 of 161Not in the top three

Microsoft Entra ID7 of 162Not in the top three

Beyond Identity7 of 160Not in the top three

Microsoft Authenticator7 of 160Not in the top three

Auth06 of 164Not in the top three

Authy4 of 160Not 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 HYPR. 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 16 of the 16 answers that named HYPR and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

startwithidentity.com15

rippling.com10

expertinsights.com8

decryptiondigest.com6

manageengine.com6

techleague.io6

workos.com6

authx.com5

oloid.com5

aimultiple.com4

Seventy-one of the seventy-one domain citations in answers naming HYPR came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

startwithidentity.com/rankings/best-mfa-for-enterprises12

rippling.com/blog/mfa-providers10

startwithidentity.com/rankings/best-mfa-solutions7

decryptiondigest.com/blog/enterprise-mfa-platform-comparison-2026-duo-okta-microsoft-ping-6

techleague.io/blog/cisco/cisco-duo-vs-okta-vs-entra-id-mfa-20266

workos.com/blog/top-mfa-providers-20266

authx.com/blog/best-mfa-solutions5

expertinsights.com/identity-and-access-management/the-top-multi-factor-authentication-mfa-5

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 HYPR'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 HYPR, 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 hypr.com 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.