IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Juniper · September 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

Juniper

20Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

10 of 12Models named it

3Categories

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

Standing

9 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Juniper was named 9 times in Firewalls and 2 other categories, where Fortinet FortiGate led with 61%. 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-market25 of 100

under the label threshold

Enterprise22 of 86

under the label threshold

In firewalls · 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 Juniper 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
Next-generation firewalls	Network and edge	0%	25 of 100	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Fortinet FortiGate at 61%
SD-WAN	Network and edge	0%	14 of 53	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Fortinet Secure SD-WAN at 41%
SASE platforms	Network and edge	0%	41 of 43	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Cato SASE Cloud at 28%

Movement

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 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.

“Versa or Juniper looked very strong in the same 2025 test, with Recommended ratings” GPT-5.4 mini · Firewalls · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Palo Alto, Check Point, or Juniper have better security track records in the near-term” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Firewalls · negative prompt · alternative

“Juniper is a Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant for SD-WAN (2024)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SD-WAN · comparative prompt · alternative

“Juniper if operational simplicity and AI assurance are key.” GPT-5.4 mini · SD-WAN · 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.

“A broader category of "platforms to avoid" includes legacy firewall vendors (historically Juniper, McAfee/Touchstone, Barracuda)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · SASE · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Juniper, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Juniper was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cisco10 of 201Not in the top three

Fortinet Secure SD-WAN9 of 201Not in the top three

Check Point8 of 201Not in the top three

Fortinet8 of 201Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks Prisma SD-WAN8 of 201Not in the top three

HPE Aruba EdgeConnect8 of 200Not in the top three

VMware VeloCloud SD-WAN8 of 200Not in the top three

Versa Secure SD-WAN8 of 200Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks6 of 203Not in the top three

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN4 of 202Not 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 Juniper. 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 17 of the 20 answers that named Juniper and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com10

cisco.com8

comparitech.com5

decryptiondigest.com5

wifihotshots.com5

g2.com4

interfacesystems.com4

reddit.com4

stlpartners.com4

checkpoint.com3

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

Pages cited

cisco.com/site/us/en/products/networking/sdwan-routers/sdwan-competitive-comparison.html5

gartner.com/reviews/market/sd-wan5

interfacesystems.com/blog/top-sd-wan-vendors4

stlpartners.com/articles/network-innovation/sd-wan-providers4

wifihotshots.com/manufacturer-comparisons/sd-wan-platforms4

comparitech.com/net-admin/next-gen-firewalls3

decryptiondigest.com/blog/enterprise-ngfw-comparison-20263

zpesystems.com/sd-wan-leaders-zs3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Juniper

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

Juniper (SRX) 1Juniper AI-Driven SD-WAN 1Juniper AI-Native SD-WAN (Mist) 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 Juniper'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 Juniper, 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 juniper.net 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.