Small business=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 13 → 14 of 69
LT-VRM
3Judge labels
3First choices
0Negative labels
2 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
4% in TPRM for mid-market buyers
Rank 5 of 87 in the mid-market standing
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 2 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business16 of 71
2%1 label
under the label threshold
Mid-market5 of 87
4%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In tprm · 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 LT-VRM 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party risk management | Security operations | 4% | 5 of 87 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 55% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 2% → 5%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, LT-VRM held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · TPRM · by segment
Mid-market▲+3Since September 2026: 2% → 5%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
5%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 12 → 5 of 82
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPRM | 2% | 5% | ▲+3Since September 2026: 2% → 5%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 12 → 5 of 87 |
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 LT-VRM 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 LT-VRM 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained3 labels3
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 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.
“The open-source options (LT-VRM, Fair TPRM) offer the best value for budget-conscious organizations” GLM 4.7 FlashX · TPRM · budget prompt · first choice
“If your budget is $0: Go with LT-VRM or Fair TPRM” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · budget 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 LT-VRM, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LT-VRM was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as LT-VRM, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and LT-VRM 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 LT-VRM. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named LT-VRM and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
learntprm.com3
upguard.com3
aravo.com2
fairtprm.com2
github.com2
sprinto.com2
vanta.com2
capterra.com1
complyjet.com1
cynomi.com1
No domain is on file for LT-VRM, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Names read as LT-VRM
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as LT-VRM; a claim can dispute any of them.
LT-VRM (LearnTPRM's Vendor Risk Management) 1LT-VRM (by LearnTPRM) 1
Follow LT-VRM
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.
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 LT-VRM'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 LT-VRM, 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 LT-VRM by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where LT-VRM 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 LT-VRM, 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.