Every category where a model named Kubescape 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
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	15%	4 of 77	0%	27	accepted challenger	▲+4Since September 2026: 10% → 14%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Cloud-native application protection	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	28 of 70	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 37%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Cloud security posture management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	38 of 80	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 37%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
Vulnerability management platforms	Security operations	0%	52 of 77	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 30%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

Since September 2026, Kubescape held within the floor in all four categories: no change cleared 11 points.

Best category · Container security · by segment

Small business▼−6Since September 2026: 23% → 18%, −6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

18%from 23% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 2 → 3 of 66

Mid-market▲+4Since September 2026: 10% → 14%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

14%from 10% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 5 → 4 of 68

Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 2% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 8 → 18 of 71

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
Container security	10%	14%	▲+4Since September 2026: 10% → 14%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 5 → 4 of 77
CNAPP	0%	0%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 42 → 28 of 70
CSPM	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 38 of 80, unchanged
Vuln management	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 52 of 77, unchanged

Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.

The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions

By model

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

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	1	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	2	4
Grok 4.20	2	1	0	3
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1	1	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	2	4
GPT-6 Luna	2	0	0	2
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	3	1	4

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

Direct4 labels1

Paraphrase28 labels17

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained23 labels5

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative9 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative76 labels in all, every segment counted; 23 of the 23 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.

“I'd recommend starting with Kubescape (now part of ARMO Platform), paired with Falco for runtime detection” Grok 4.20 · Container security · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“use the open-source floor with Kubescape for posture, Calico for network policy, and Falco for runtime” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Container security · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“My default pick: Kubescape, using its CLI in CI and Operator for continuous cluster monitoring.” GPT-6 Luna · Container security · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Start with Kubescape + Falco (Free/Open Source), then evaluate paid upgrades” Kimi K2 · Container security · paraphrase prompt · first choice

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 Kubescape, over the 76 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Kubescape was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Falco63 of 767Compare →

Trivy61 of 7622Compare →

Aqua Security52 of 765Compare →

Sysdig Secure45 of 763Compare →

Prisma Cloud39 of 762Not among the top eight

Snyk Container30 of 766Compare →

SUSE NeuVector19 of 761Not among the top eight

Wiz16 of 765Compare →

Calico16 of 760Not among the top eight

Microsoft Defender for Cloud14 of 763Not 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 Kubescape. 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 75 of the 76 answers that named Kubescape and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org60

gbhackers.com46

portainer.io40

cybersecuritynews.com30

esecurityplanet.com29

appsecsanta.com27

thectoclub.com25

expertinsights.com23

getastra.com23

itechguides.com23

326 of the 326 domain citations in answers naming Kubescape came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/container-security-by-business-size-239

gbhackers.com/best-container-security-compared32

cyberpress.org/kubernetes-security-by-business-size-229

esecurityplanet.com/products/container-and-kubernetes-security-vendors29

portainer.io/blog/container-security-tools25

thectoclub.com/tools/best-container-security-solutions25

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-container-security-tools22

appsecsanta.com/container-security-tools20

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

kubescape.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Kubescape takes 15% of first choices and Trivy takes 22%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “container security platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “container security platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 260 a month (“kubescape”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 1 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 150 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 54 · 3 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 259
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on Google

None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

15%

rank 4 of 77 in container security

Segment leader

22%

Trivy

First choices: 23 across its categories
Named in: 76 answers
Its own site cited: in 75 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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 kubescape.io

352

subdomains included

Content

counted in the table below

Documentation

303

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest
Blog	28	2	2026-07-24
Report or ebook	5	undated
Comparison	1	undated

Most recent

2026-07-2407 blog
2026-07-01Kubescape report metadata protection blog
2026-06-0906 blog
2026-06-01Kubescape cicd integrations blog
2025-05-1505 blog
2025-05-01Kubescape gke autopilot blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page kubescape.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 Kubescape

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

Kubescape (ARMO) 1Kubescape (now part of ARMO Platform) 1

Follow Kubescape

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

Kubescape is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: An open-source Kubernetes security platform designed to provide practical, end-to-end security for Kubernetes environments.
kubescape.io
For: engineers and operators
kubescape.io
Certifications: Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) incubating project
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting, customers

What Kubescape's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: kubescape.io, kubescape.io/docs/integrations. 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 Kubescape'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 Kubescape, 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 Kubescape by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Kubescape 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 Kubescape, 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.