Every category where a model named Mandiant 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
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	128 of 128	78%	9	under 10 labels · led by NordStellar at 13%
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	46 of 76	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%

Movement

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

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	2	3
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct12 labelsNone

Paraphrase5 labelsNone

Comparative17 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative51 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.

“Frontline IR data + VirusTotal; deep technical analysis, Gemini AI.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Threat intel · 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.

“Most Expensive: Custom Manual Pen Test (Enterprise firms like Mandiant or CrowdStrike, usually $50k+)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PTaaS · direct prompt · soft negative

“Large enterprises often buy raw, firehose-style threat feeds (like Recorded Future or Mandiant)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Threat intel · direct prompt · soft negative

“Enterprise platforms like Mandiant or Recorded Future are expensive and best for mature teams” Grok 4.1 Fast · Threat intel · negative prompt · soft negative

“Extremely expensive relative to alternatives... May be overkill for mid-market teams” Kimi K2 · Threat intel · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Mandiant, over the 51 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mandiant was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Recorded Future27 of 515Not in the top three

NetSPI16 of 5110Not in the top three

Synack16 of 512Not in the top three

Bishop Fox15 of 513Not in the top three

ThreatConnect15 of 512Not in the top three

Cobalt14 of 512Not in the top three

NCC Group11 of 510Not in the top three

CrowdStrike10 of 511Not in the top three

OpenCTI9 of 511Not in the top three

Rapid79 of 511Not 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 Mandiant. 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 40 of the 51 answers that named Mandiant and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

analyticsinsight.net16

upguard.com16

underdefense.com14

deepstrike.io13

synack.com12

cyware.com11

redbotsecurity.com10

b2breviews.com9

cybri.com9

shadowdragon.io9

119 of the 119 domain citations in answers naming Mandiant came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

upguard.com/blog/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-vendors16

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/10-best-threat-intelligence-platforms-in-202613

synack.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies11

underdefense.com/blog/penetration-testing-services11

redbotsecurity.com/penetration-testing-companies10

analyticsinsight.net/cybersecurity/best-threat-intelligence-platforms9

b2breviews.com/threat-intelligence-platforms9

shadowdragon.io/resources/best-threat-intelligence-platforms9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Mandiant

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

Mandiant (Google Cloud) 1Mandiant (Google Cloud) / Google Threat Intelligence 1Mandiant (Google) 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 Mandiant'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, 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 mandiant.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.