Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 12 → 16 of 76
Microsoft Defender · 1 category · RankedMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management
73Judge labels
6First choices
8Negative labels
13 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
8% in Vuln management for enterprise buyers
Rank 6 of 77 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 13% of its 23 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business16 of 82
0%21 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market6 of 77
4%23 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise5 of 68
8%29 labels
accepted challenger
In vuln management · 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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability management platforms | Security operations | 4% | 6 of 77 | 13% | 23 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Vuln management · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 7 → 11 of 74
Enterprise▲+1Since September 2026: 8% → 9%, +1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
9%from 8% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 4 of 62, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vuln management | 2% | 2% | =heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 7 → 6 of 77 |
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
By model
How each model treated Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
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
Direct10 labelsNone
Paraphrase7 labelsNone
Comparative25 labels3not counted in share
Budget-constrained17 labels6
Scale-constrained5 labelsNone
Negative9 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative73 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 9 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.
“for a tight budget, I'd start with Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management if you already use Microsoft 365 or Defender” GPT-6 Luna · Vuln management · budget prompt · first choice
“Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management (free trial / included...) for risk‑based prioritization and remediation” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Vuln management · budget prompt · first choice
“Microsoft-heavy environment: Evaluate Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management first if you already use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint P2” GPT-6 Luna · Vuln management · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“check whether Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management meets your needs—it's effectively free if you have M365 E5 or Defender P2 licenses” Kimi K2 · Vuln management · scale 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.
“Limitations: Feature depth drops outside Windows ecosystem; limited Linux/macOS capabilities” Kimi K2 · Vuln management · comparative prompt · soft negative
“they should not be your *only* vulnerability management platform” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative
“Multi-tenant features are disappointing” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, over the 73 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, over the 73 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management. 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 70 of the 73 answers that named Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
orca.security41
vicarius.io34
riskwatch.com33
techrepublic.com29
axis-intelligence.com20
comparitech.com20
motadata.com20
guideflow.com19
tenable.com19
upguard.com19
254 of the 254 domain citations in answers naming Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 590 a month (“microsoft defender vulnerability management”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 7 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on Microsoft Defender's site (microsoft.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
4%
rank 6 of 77 in vuln management
Segment leader
30%
Rapid7 InsightVM
- First choices
- 6 across its categories
- Named in
- 73 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 70 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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management; a claim can dispute any of them.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management (MDVM) 1
Follow Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management
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
Microsoft Defender is the company behind Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management.ShowHide
The company
Microsoft Defender is the company behind Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from Microsoft Defender
- Microsoft Defender ATP, Microsoft Defender Attack Simulation Training, Microsoft Defender Experts, Microsoft Defender Experts for XDR, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, Microsoft Defender TI, Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, Microsoft Defender XDR and 12 more
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Free plan or trial
- Try for free microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-defender-for-individuals/credit-monitoring
- Not stated on the pages read
- Positioning, who it is for, price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: microsoft.com/bg-bg/microsoft-365/microsoft-defender-for-individuals, microsoft.com/sr-latn-rs/microsoft-365/microsoft-defender-for-individuals, microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-defender-for-individuals/credit-monitoring, microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-defender-for-individuals/identity-protection-and-prevention. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management'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 Vulnerability Management, 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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management 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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, 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.