IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Libraesva Email Security Gateway · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Libraesva Email Security Gateway

2Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

2 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

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Libraesva Email Security Gateway was named 2 times in Email security, where Microsoft Defender for Office 365 led with 31%. 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-market68 of 71

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In email security · 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 Libraesva Email Security Gateway 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
Email security	Security operations	0%	68 of 71	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Office 365 at 31%

Movement

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

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
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	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Status: Caution Required (History of Exploitation)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Email security · negative prompt · soft negative

“Approach with caution: ... Libraesva” Kimi K2 · Email security · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Libraesva Email Security Gateway, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Libraesva Email Security Gateway was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration2 of 20Not in the top three

Cisco Secure Email2 of 20Not in the top three

Mimecast Email Security2 of 20Not in the top three

Abnormal AI1 of 20Not in the top three

Barracuda Email Security Gateway1 of 20Not in the top three

Bitdefender Email Security1 of 20Not in the top three

IRONSCALES1 of 20Not in the top three

Material Security1 of 20Not in the top three

Proofpoint Email Protection1 of 20Not in the top three

Sublime Security1 of 20Not 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 Libraesva Email Security Gateway. 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 2 of the 2 answers that named Libraesva Email Security Gateway and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cybervendorguide.com2

g2.com2

gartner.com2

knowbe4.com2

nhimg.org2

securityaffairs.com2

securityweek.com2

9to5mac.com1

abnormal.ai1

adaptivesecurity.com1

Seventeen of the seventeen domain citations in answers naming Libraesva Email Security Gateway came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cybervendorguide.com/guides/email-security2

g2.com/products/check-point-email-security/reviews2

g2.com/products/mimecast-advanced-email-security/reviews2

gartner.com/reviews/market/email-security2

knowbe4.com/compare/best-cloud-email-security-platform2

westernnetworks.com/index4.php1

9to5mac.com/2024/11/18/security-bite-why-email-security-still-so-bad1

abnormal.ai/blog/best-email-security-companies1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Libraesva Email Security Gateway

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

Libraesva Email Security Gateway (ESG) 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 Libraesva Email Security Gateway'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 Libraesva Email Security Gateway, 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 libraesva.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.