Index › Products › Meta AI · October 2026 Edition

3 categories · Named, not ranked

Meta AI

4Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

4 / 14Models named it

3Categories

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, 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. Meta AI was named 4 times in AI security and 2 other categories, where SentinelOne Singularity led with 11%. 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-market230 of 233

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In ai 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 Meta AI 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
AI security platforms	Security operations	0%	230 of 233	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by SentinelOne Singularity at 11%
Enterprise AI assistants	Data platform	0%	139 of 145	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by ChatGPT at 25%
ML platforms	Data platform	0%	94 of 107	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Azure Machine Learning at 21%	goneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.

Movement

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

ShowHide

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	1	1
Grok 4.20	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Ranked the most privacy-invasive platform in multiple independent rankings” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Enterprise AI · negative prompt · hard negative

“be cautious with Meta AI, Gemini, DeepSeek and Pi.ai for lack of opt-out from training use and high data-sharing risk” Muse Glimmer 30B · ML platforms · negative prompt · soft negative

“also flagged Gemini, Meta AI, and Microsoft Copilot for higher privacy risk or transparency issues” Perplexity Sonar · AI security · negative prompt · soft negative

“Some of the largest AI platforms like Gemini and Meta AI pose a higher risk to user privacy” Llama 4 Maverick · AI security · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Meta AI, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Meta AI was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Google Gemini4 of 40Not among the top eight

Claude3 of 40Not among the top eight

ChatGPT2 of 40Not among the top eight

DeepSeek2 of 40Not among the top eight

Grok2 of 40Not among the top eight

Mistral1 of 41Not among the top eight

Amazon SageMaker1 of 40Not among the top eight

Anthropic Claude Enterprise1 of 40Not among the top eight

Azure Machine Learning1 of 40Not among the top eight

Consumer-tier ChatGPT1 of 40Not 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 Meta AI. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named Meta AI and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

linkedin.com4

arxiv.org2

blog.incogni.com2

cyera.com2

getastra.com2

mycroft.io2

zdnet.com2

21998286.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net1

ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org1

au.lifehacker.com1

No domain is on file for Meta AI, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

blog.incogni.com/ai-llm-privacy-ranking-20252

cyera.com/blog/ai-spm-tools2

getastra.com/blog/ai-security/ai-security-tools2

linkedin.com/pulse/enterprise-ai-security-which-platforms-protect-your-dataand-berkland-oc2

mycroft.io/blog/ai-security-platform-buyers-guide2

zdnet.com/article/best-and-worst-ai-for-your-privacy-ranked2

21998286.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/21998286/HiddenLayer%20AI%20Threat%20Landsca1

ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2509.067031

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow Meta AI

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 Meta AI'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 Meta AI, 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 Meta AI by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Meta AI 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 Meta AI, 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.