Every category where a model named IBM OpenPages 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
GRC platforms	Security operations	0%	64 of 77	38%	8	under 10 labels · led by Vanta at 14%
Compliance automation	Security operations	0%	30 of 54	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Drata at 37%
Third-party risk management	Security operations	0%	30 of 72	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 53%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for IBM OpenPages 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 IBM OpenPages 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	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	0	2
Mistral Small	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained5 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative15 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative49 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.

“If you need a more established name with scalable pricing, IBM OpenPages Essentials is also worth considering.” Mistral Small · GRC · budget prompt · alternative

“Other options to consider are Riskonnect, RiskLedger, IBM OpenPages, and Vanta” Llama 4 Maverick · TPRM · budget 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.

“first-generation tools were built primarily for SOX compliance and financial controls, not modern integrated GRC” Kimi K2 · GRC · negative prompt · soft negative

“Enterprise suites (Archer, MetricStream, IBM OpenPages) often start at $55K+ and go much higher.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · GRC · scale prompt · soft negative

“they can be over-engineered for smaller teams and slower to deploy” GPT-5.4 mini · GRC · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as IBM OpenPages, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and IBM OpenPages was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management33 of 494Not in the top three

MetricStream32 of 495Not in the top three

Vanta26 of 497Not in the top three

Drata26 of 496Not in the top three

Archer26 of 492Not in the top three

OneTrust21 of 490Not in the top three

Hyperproof20 of 492Not in the top three

AuditBoard20 of 490Not in the top three

Sprinto15 of 492Not in the top three

Secureframe13 of 492Not 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 IBM OpenPages. 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 43 of the 49 answers that named IBM OpenPages and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

expertinsights.com23

vanta.com21

orbiqhq.com18

gartner.com17

learn.g2.com14

optro.ai13

riskwatch.com11

sprinto.com11

apono.io10

metricstream.com10

148 of the 148 domain citations in answers naming IBM OpenPages came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-governance-risk-compliance-grc-platforms15

orbiqhq.com/compliance-automation/best-grc-software11

apono.io/blog/top-10-governance-risk-and-compliance-grc-software-solutions10

metricstream.com/blog/top-governance-risk-compliance-grc-tools.html9

riskonnect.com/best-grc-software-platforms-20269

vanta.com/resources/best-grc-software-solutions-for-enterprises9

complyjet.com/blog/best-grc-software8

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-compliance-automation-tools8

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as IBM OpenPages

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

IBM 1IBM OpenPages Essentials 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 IBM OpenPages'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 IBM OpenPages, 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 ibm.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.