Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 62 → 51 of 69
Lacework FortiCNAPP
43Judge labels
0First choices
10Negative labels
12 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in CSPM for mid-market buyers
Rank 17 of 80 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 28% of its 18 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Lacework FortiCNAPP →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business53 of 72
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market17 of 80
0%18 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise11 of 52
0%18 labels
accepted challenger
In cspm · 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 Lacework FortiCNAPP 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud security posture management | Cloud and infrastructure | 0% | 17 of 80 | 28% | 18 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cloud-native application protection | Cloud and infrastructure | 0% | 36 of 70 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 37% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Lacework FortiCNAPP held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · CSPM · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 37 → 17 of 73
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 13 → 11 of 46
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSPM | 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 37 → 17 of 80 |
| CNAPP | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 36 of 70, 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 Lacework FortiCNAPP across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Lacework FortiCNAPP 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 | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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
Direct5 labelsNone
Paraphrase4 labelsNone
Comparative11 labelsNone
Budget-constrained3 labelsNone
Scale-constrained11 labelsNone
Negative9 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative43 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.
“Lacework offers behavioral anomaly detection to reduce false positives with strong focus on runtime security” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CSPM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Provides thorough coverage across AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and hybrid environments” MiniMax M2.5 · CSPM · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Lacework – Good for mid-market, though acquired by Fortinet (some uncertainty)” Kimi K2 · CSPM · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Best for teams worried about insider threats or compromised credentials” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CSPM · 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.
“Using Lacework now carries the risk of the tool becoming obsolete or significantly changing its roadmap” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CSPM · negative prompt · hard negative
“What to Avoid on a Tight Budget... unlikely to be "limited budget" friendly” Kimi K2 · CSPM · budget prompt · hard negative
“noted for high costs (starting around $22K/year) and may not be the best fit” Mistral Small · CSPM · negative prompt · soft negative
“If you are not already a Fortinet customer, you should be highly cautious” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CSPM · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Lacework FortiCNAPP, over the 43 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Lacework FortiCNAPP was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Lacework FortiCNAPP, over the 43 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Lacework FortiCNAPP was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 Lacework FortiCNAPP. 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 37 of the 43 answers that named Lacework FortiCNAPP and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
complyjet.com20
g2.com20
orca.security19
techrepublic.com19
cloudaware.com16
gartner.com16
ituonline.com14
trustradius.com14
cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com11
cyberpress.org11
No domain is on file for Lacework FortiCNAPP, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where Lacework FortiCNAPP stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where Lacework FortiCNAPP stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 20 a month (“lacework forticnapp”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 2 a month
- Its own site
- No site of its own on file, so no site figures
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 17 of 80 in CSPM
Segment leader
37%
Wiz
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 43 answers
- Its own site cited
- No site on file to match
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.
Names read as Lacework FortiCNAPP
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Lacework FortiCNAPP; a claim can dispute any of them.
Lacework 13Lacework (FortiCNAPP) 2FortiCNAPP 1Lacework (now FortiCNAPP) 1Lacework (now Fortinet FortiCNAPP) 1
Follow Lacework FortiCNAPP
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
Lacework is the company behind Lacework FortiCNAPP.ShowHide
The company
Lacework is the company behind Lacework FortiCNAPP.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from Lacework
- Lacework / FortiCNAPP
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 Lacework FortiCNAPP'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 Lacework FortiCNAPP, 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 Lacework FortiCNAPP by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Lacework FortiCNAPP 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 Lacework FortiCNAPP, 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.