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 33 → 39 of 62
2 categories · Named, not rankedLiving Security
6Judge labels
1First choices
0Negative labels
4 / 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.
Standing
3 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Living Security was named 3 times in Awareness training and 1 other category, where KnowBe4 led with 45%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market26 of 64
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise6 of 55
2%3 labels
under the label threshold
In awareness training · 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 Living Security 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security awareness training | Security operations | 0% | 26 of 64 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by KnowBe4 at 45% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Insider risk management | Security operations | 0% | 61 of 84 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management at 22% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Living Security held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Awareness training · by segment
Enterprise▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 31 → 6 of 50
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness training | 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 33 → 26 of 64 |
| Insider risk | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 61 of 84, 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 Living Security 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 Living Security 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase1 labelNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 label1
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative1 labelNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.
“Living Security is the best pick if your security team needs recurring phishing simulations with outcome-based training” Muse Glimmer 30B · Awareness training · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Living Security (narrative-driven)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Awareness training · negative 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 Living Security, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Living Security was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Living Security, over the 6 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Living Security 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 Living Security. 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 5 of the 6 answers that named Living Security and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
hoxhunt.com4
adaptivesecurity.com3
gartner.com3
learn.g2.com3
livingsecurity.comYour site3
reddit.com2
usecure.io2
checkthat.ai1
cloudsek.com1
complorer.com1
Twenty of the twenty-three domain citations in answers naming Living Security came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on livingsecurity.com
1,797
subdomains included
Content
712
counted in the table below
Documentation
769
Product · Integration
29 · 4
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 609 | 23 | 2026-09-25 | Awareness training, DLP | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 49 | 0 | 2025-11-13 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 21 | 2 | 2026-09-25 | MFA, Endpoint protection | |
| Comparison | 10 | 0 | 2026-05-28 | ||
| Conference or event | 9 | 1 | 2026-07-30 | ||
| Case study | 7 | undated | |||
| Podcast or video | 3 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 2 | undated | |||
| News or press | 2 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-25How do ai governance monitoring platforms support compliance blog
- 2026-09-25What is continuous ai governance monitoring what is continuous ai governance monitoring glossary or explainer
- 2026-09-23Ciso govern cyber behavior privacy measurement blog
- 2026-09-22Security culture assessment blog
- 2026-09-09Employee risk reporting dashboard blog
- 2026-09-04Employee cyber risk prioritize people access blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page livingsecurity.com 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. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow Living Security
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
Living Security is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Living Security is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI-Native Human Risk Management
- For
- CISO; Security Awareness Team; GRC; SOC/IR
- Price stated
- Contact us for enterprise pricing. livingsecurity.com/plans
- Integrations claimed
- 300 livingsecurity.com
- Customers named
- Blackbaud
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, free plan or trial, certifications, hosting
What Living Security's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: livingsecurity.com, livingsecurity.com, livingsecurity.com/plans, livingsecurity.com/platform, livingsecurity.com/resources/case-studies. 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 Living Security'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 Living Security, 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 Living Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Living Security 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 Living Security, 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.