| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud-native application protection | Cloud and infrastructure | 21% | 2 of 70 | 4% | 53 | accepted challenger | ▼−7Since September 2026: 30% → 23%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cloud security posture management | Cloud and infrastructure | 19% | 2 of 80 | 17% | 54 | accepted challenger | ▲+5Since September 2026: 14% → 19%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Endpoint protection | IT operations and endpoint | 17% | 3 of 86 | 8% | 12 | accepted challenger | ▼−5Since September 2026: 22% → 17%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Endpoint detection and response | Security operations | 15% | 4 of 55 | 0% | 10 | accepted challenger | ▼−1Since September 2026: 14% → 13%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI security platforms | Security operations | 11% | 2 of 233 | 0% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by SentinelOne Singularity at 11% | |
| Client-side protection | Security operations | 7% | 6 of 120 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by cside at 13% | |
| Data loss prevention | Security operations | 2% | 17 of 89 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview DLP at 46% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now. |
| Container and Kubernetes security | Cloud and infrastructure | 0% | 16 of 77 | 12% | 8 | under 10 labels · led by Trivy at 22% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data security posture management | Security operations | 0% | 42 of 105 | 25% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview at 18% | |
| Vulnerability management platforms | Security operations | 0% | 33 of 77 | 33% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 30% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Network detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 36 of 102 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by ManageEngine NetFlow Analyzer at 21% | |
| Extended detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 36 of 58 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender XDR at 40% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Network access control | Network and edge | 0% | 94 of 111 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Portnox Cloud at 35% | |
| Threat intelligence platforms | Security operations | 0% | 62 of 119 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by MISP at 12% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI security | 0% | 13% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 13% now. | New this edition | Rank 2 of 233, unchanged |
| CNAPP | 30% | 23% | ▼−7Since September 2026: 30% → 23%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 of 70, unchanged |
| CSPM | 14% | 19% | ▲+5Since September 2026: 14% → 19%, +5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 3 → 2 of 80 |
| Client-side protection | 0% | 5% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 5% now. | New this edition | Rank 6 of 120, unchanged |
| Endpoint protection | 22% | 17% | ▼−5Since September 2026: 22% → 17%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 → 3 of 86 |
| DLP | 0% | 2% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now. | New this edition | Rank 17 of 89, unchanged |
| EDR | 14% | 13% | ▼−1Since September 2026: 14% → 13%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 5 → 4 of 55 |
| Container security | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 46 → 16 of 77 |
| DSPM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 42 of 105, unchanged |
| Vuln management | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 24 → 33 of 77 |
| NDR | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 36 of 102, unchanged |
| XDR | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 27 → 36 of 58 |
| NAC | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 94 of 111, unchanged |
| Threat intel | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 62 of 119, unchanged |
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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 2 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Grok 4.20 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 16 |
| Mistral Small | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 5 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 16 |
| Kimi K2 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 11 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 15 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 12 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 3 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 3 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 13 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“My top advice: If you are not already using Microsoft 365, Microsoft Defender for Business is still a strong contender because it is the most cost-effective way” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Endpoint protection · budget prompt · first choice
“If you want the best value and least friction for a mid-size B2B firm already in the Microsoft ecosystem, start with Microsoft Defender for Business” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Endpoint protection · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Already on Azure or want a zero-cost baseline: Start with Defender for Cloud Foundational CSPM free and augment with Prowler for ad-hoc audits.” Muse Glimmer 30B · CSPM · budget prompt · first choice
“Microsoft Defender for Business stands out as one of the best AI security platforms due to its low cost, ease of use, and robust features” Grok 4.20 · AI security · budget prompt · first choice
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.
“The Trap: Relying exclusively on AWS Security Hub or Microsoft Defender for Cloud... Vendor Lock-in.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CNAPP · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid blindly adopting: Microsoft Defender for Cloud if you are multi-cloud (not Azure-first)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CSPM · negative prompt · hard negative
“only deeply address their own environments ... Avoid native-only tools.” Kimi K2 · CSPM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Pure-Play Single-Cloud Tools (For Multi-Cloud Users) ... Why avoid” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CSPM · negative prompt · hard negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 569 of the 598 answers that named Microsoft Defender for Cloud and are not a share of its labels.
1,404 of the 1,538 domain citations in answers naming Microsoft Defender for Cloud came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Microsoft Defender for Cloud's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: microsoft.com/bg-bg/microsoft-365/enterprise/cloud-endpoints, microsoft.com/de-de/microsoft-365/enterprise/cloud-endpoints, microsoft.com/es-es/microsoft-365/enterprise/cloud-endpoints, microsoft.com/fi-fi/microsoft-365/enterprise/cloud-endpoints, microsoft.com/fr-fr/microsoft-365/enterprise/cloud-endpoints. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Microsoft Defender for Cloud'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 Microsoft Defender for Cloud, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Microsoft Defender for Cloud by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is among the products AI models recommend first in Cloud-native application protection this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is among the products AI models recommend first in Cloud security posture management this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is among the products AI models recommend first in Endpoint protection this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is among the products AI models recommend first in AI security platforms this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.