| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data masking and test data management | Data platform | 0% | 120 of 140 | 50% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by DATPROF at 17% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“SQL Server-only environments | SQL Server DDM (native, low-cost)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Data masking · comparative prompt · alternative
“SQL Server/Azure native solution | Microsoft Purview” Kimi K2 · Data masking · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“limited to SQL Server and lacks the advanced features (discovery, referential integrity, wide database support) of dedicated enterprise tools” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Data masking · comparative prompt · soft negative
“Microsoft explicitly states this is "not a security boundary" on its own.” Kimi K2 · Data masking · negative prompt · soft negative
“Microsoft DDM — use only as a *supplement*, never alone” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Data masking · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 13 of the 13 answers that named Microsoft SQL Server Dynamic Data Masking and are not a share of its labels.
Sixty-seven of the sixty-seven domain citations in answers naming Microsoft SQL Server Dynamic Data Masking came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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.
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 SQL Server Dynamic Data Masking'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 SQL Server Dynamic Data Masking, 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 SQL Server Dynamic Data Masking by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: