IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Material Security · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Material Security

7Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

5 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

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Material Security was named 4 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-market14 of 71

under the label threshold

Enterprise16 of 47

under the label threshold

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 Material 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
Email security	Security operations	0%	14 of 71	0%	4	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 Material Security 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 Material Security across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	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	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Comparative2 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative5 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

“API-native, AI-driven platforms (like Abnormal, Material Security, or Sublime Security) which sit *inside* the cloud mailbox” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email security · negative prompt · first choice

“should evaluate API-based ICES solutions (Abnormal, IRONSCALES, Material Security)” Kimi K2 · Email security · comparative prompt · first choice

“Examples: Abnormal AI, Sublime Security, Material Security, Ironscales” Kimi K2 · Email security · 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 Material Security, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Material Security was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Abnormal AI7 of 70Not in the top three

Mimecast Email Security6 of 70Not in the top three

Proofpoint Email Protection5 of 70Not in the top three

Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration4 of 70Not in the top three

Cisco Secure Email4 of 70Not in the top three

IRONSCALES4 of 70Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender for Office 3654 of 70Not in the top three

Barracuda Email Security Gateway3 of 70Not in the top three

SpamTitan2 of 70Not in the top three

Sublime Security2 of 70Not 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 Material Security. 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 6 of the 7 answers that named Material Security and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com4

sublime.security4

cybersectools.com3

cybervendorguide.com3

material.securityYour site3

proofpoint.com3

tech-insider.org3

bleepingcomputer.com2

expertinsights.com2

feedly.com2

Twenty-six of the twenty-nine domain citations in answers naming Material Security came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/email-security4

cybersectools.com/resources/shortlists/best-email-security-platforms3

cybervendorguide.com/guides/email-security3

material.security/workspace-resources/why-your-secure-email-gateway-is-failing-right-now3

sublime.security/articles/enterprise-email-security-solutions3

expertinsights.com/email-security/top-email-security-gateways2

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-email-security-platforms-20262

ironscales.com/blog/the-best-email-security-companies-rankings-and-reviews2

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Material 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 Material Security, 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 material.security 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.