Every category where a model named Mandiant Security Validation 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
Breach and attack simulation	Security operations	0%	67 of 74	40%	5	under 10 labels · led by Cymulate at 24%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Mandiant Security Validation yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

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

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	1	0	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labels2

Comparative7 labelsNone

Budget-constrained5 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative9 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative32 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“Mandiant when its threat intelligence and emulation approach fit your needs” GPT-6 Luna · BAS · 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.

“without the higher costs associated with enterprise solutions like Cymulate, AttackIQ, Mandiant, or Pentera” Mistral Small · BAS · budget prompt · soft negative

“competitors like SafeBreach ($50K+/year) or Mandiant ($100K+/year)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · BAS · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Mandiant Security Validation, over the 32 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mandiant Security Validation was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cymulate28 of 327Not among the top eight

SafeBreach27 of 324Not among the top eight

Picus Security Validation Platform24 of 325Not among the top eight

AttackIQ22 of 324Not among the top eight

Pentera17 of 321Not among the top eight

Horizon3.ai NodeZero8 of 323Not among the top eight

NodeZero6 of 323Not among the top eight

XM Cyber6 of 320Not among the top eight

AttackIQ Flex4 of 323Not among the top eight

Infection Monkey3 of 321Not 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 Mandiant Security Validation. 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 31 of the 32 answers that named Mandiant Security Validation and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

startupstash.com25

picussecurity.com21

guideflow.com19

cymulate.com17

adaptivesecurity.com15

guptadeepak.com14

g2.com12

gbhackers.com11

peerspot.com11

cloud.google.comYour site10

145 of the 155 domain citations in answers naming Mandiant Security Validation came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

startupstash.com/best-breach-and-attack-simulation-tools25

guideflow.com/blog/breach-and-attack-simulation-software17

adaptivesecurity.com/blog/top-bas-platforms-to-strengthen-security-in-202515

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-breach-attack-simulation-tools-202613

cloud.google.com/security/products/mandiant-security-validation10

perkinssecurity.com/index-289.html9

csoonline.com/article/2132289/breach-and-attack-simulation-tools.html9

thectoclub.com/tools/best-bas-software9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

cloud.google.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Mandiant Security Validation takes 0% of first choices and Cymulate takes 24%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “breach and attack simulation platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “breach and attack simulation platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 110 a month (“mandiant security validation”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 1 a month
Its company's site: cloud.google.com shared with Mandiant's other products; the figures are the site's
Organic visits to its site: about 7,405,347 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 70,320 · 16,032 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 201,334
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

rank 67 of 74 in BAS

Segment leader

24%

Cymulate

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 32 answers
Its own site cited: in 31 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.

Names read as Mandiant Security Validation

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

Mandiant 3

Follow Mandiant Security Validation

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

Mandiant is the company behind Mandiant Security Validation.

ShowHide

On record

Company records

Also from Mandiant: Mandiant Advantage, Mandiant Threat Intelligence

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 Mandiant Security Validation'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 Mandiant Security Validation, 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 Mandiant Security Validation by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Mandiant Security Validation 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 Mandiant Security Validation, 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.