Index › Vendors › Iru · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Iru

5Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

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

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Iru was named 1 time in UEM, where Microsoft Intune led with 43%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business17 of 59

under the label threshold

Mid-market27 of 52

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In uem · 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 Iru 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
Unified endpoint management	IT operations and endpoint	0%	27 of 52	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Intune at 43%

Movement

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

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 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.

“majority-Mac fleet looking to simplify SOC 2 compliance? *Yes:* Go with Iru (Kandji).” Gemini 3.5 Flash · UEM · direct 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 Iru, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Iru was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Intune4 of 52Not in the top three

NinjaOne4 of 50Not in the top three

Hexnode UEM3 of 50Not in the top three

Jamf3 of 50Not in the top three

ManageEngine Endpoint Central2 of 50Not in the top three

Miradore2 of 50Not in the top three

Mosyle2 of 50Not in the top three

Tanium1 of 51Not in the top three

Acronis Cyber Protect1 of 50Not in the top three

Action11 of 50Not 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 Iru. 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 3 of the 5 answers that named Iru and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

deel.com2

expertinsights.com2

gbhackers.com2

learn.g2.com2

preyproject.com2

acronis.com1

cloudspress.com1

cnicsolutions.com1

comparitech.com1

cyberpress.org1

No domain is on file for Iru, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

deel.com/blog/best-mdm-for-small-business2

preyproject.com/blog/mdm-solutions-for-smbs2

acronis.com/en/blog/posts/best-patch-management-software-and-tools-20261

cloudspress.com/the-best-mobile-device-management-mdm-solutions1

cnicsolutions.com/cybersecurity-threat-protection/best-mdm-solutions-small-business1

comparitech.com/net-admin/best-patch-management-software-tools1

cyberpress.org/patch-management-by-business-size-21

cybersecuritynews.com/best-mdm-solutions1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Iru

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

Iru (formerly Kandji) 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 Iru'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 Iru, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.