Small business▲+1Since September 2026: 17% → 18%, +1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
18%from 17% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 2 → 1 of 114
2 categories · RankedMISP
101Judge labels
17First choices
24Negative labels
13 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
18% in Threat intel for small business buyers
Rank 1 of 119 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 19% of its 36 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of MISP →By buyer segmentStrongest at small business.
Small business1 of 126
18%46 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market1 of 119
12%36 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise83 of 83
0%17 labels
criticized challenger
In threat intel · 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 MISP 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intelligence platforms | Security operations | 12% | 1 of 119 | 19% | 36 | accepted challenger | ▼−1Since September 2026: 11% → 9%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| AI SOC agents | Security operations | 0% | 48 of 104 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Dropzone AI at 24% |
Movement
Since September 2026, MISP held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Threat intel · by segment
Mid-market▼−1Since September 2026: 11% → 9%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
9%from 11% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 2 → 3 of 111
Enterprise=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 81 → 78 of 78
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat intel | 11% | 9% | ▼−1Since September 2026: 11% → 9%, −1 point. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 1 of 119 |
| AI SOC agents | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 48 of 104, 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
By model
How each model treated MISP 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 MISP 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 2 | 0 | 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
Direct11 labelsNone
Paraphrase20 labels2
Comparative22 labels5not counted in share
Budget-constrained22 labels15
Scale-constrained8 labelsNone
Negative18 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative101 labels in all, every segment counted; 17 of the 22 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 most companies with a limited budget, I'd start with MISP. It's free, open-source, and built to collect, organize, correlate, and share threat indicators.” GPT-6 Luna · Threat intel · budget prompt · first choice
“Start with MISP if you have technical staff who can manage it—it's the most mature and widely adopted open-source option” Kimi K2 · Threat intel · budget prompt · first choice
“MISP is the most widely deployed open-source TIP globally. It is completely free and open-source under the AGPL license” Muse Glimmer 30B · Threat intel · budget prompt · first choice
“Add MISP: Deploy MISP for internal threat intelligence management (cost: just server infrastructure)” MiniMax M2.5 · Threat intel · budget prompt · first choice
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.
“avoid building a MISP instance yourself” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Threat intel · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Why Be Cautious: They are only "free" if your time is free... choosing an open-source platform will likely result in "shelfware""},{"vendor_raw_name":"OpenCTI","label":"soft_negative","position":2,"evidence":"Open-source platforms like MISP and OpenCTI are world-class... Why Be Cautious: They are only "free" if your time is free.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Threat intel · negative prompt · soft negative
“tools like MISP and OpenCTI are often valid, but they may require more internal effort and may not suit teams that need turnkey enterprise support” Perplexity Sonar · Threat intel · negative prompt · soft negative
“Open source platforms such as MISP and OpenCTI ... require significant internal engineering resources to deploy, maintain, and integrate.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Threat intel · comparative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as MISP, over the 101 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MISP was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as MISP, over the 101 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MISP 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 MISP. 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 92 of the 101 answers that named MISP and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
upguard.com39
underdefense.com32
vectra.ai32
flare.io31
g2.com31
learn.g2.com28
analyticsinsight.net27
b2breviews.com27
recordedfuture.com26
it-ai-index.com25
298 of the 298 domain citations in answers naming MISP came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where MISP stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where MISP stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “threat intelligence platform”
2
Position for “threat intelligence platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 1,600 a month (“misp”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 91 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,202 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 126 · 29 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,904
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
12%
rank 1 of 119 in threat intel
First choices
17
across its categories
- Named in
- 101 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 92 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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on misp-project.org
379
subdomains included
Content
6
counted in the table below
Documentation
1
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 3 | 0 | 2001-01-01 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 1 | 0 | 2001-01-01 | ||
| Conference or event | 1 | 0 | 2001-01-01 | ||
| Comparison | 1 | 0 | 2019-09-25 |
Most recent
- 2019-09-25Hostev vs own misp comparison
- 2001-01-01Best practices for misp api key management blog
- 2001-01-01Events webinar webinar or virtual event
- 2001-01-01Sizing your misp instance blog
- 2001-01-01Misp summit conference or event
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page misp-project.org exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as MISP
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as MISP; a claim can dispute any of them.
MISP (Malware Information Sharing Platform) 12OpenCTI + MISP 1
Follow MISP
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
MISP is its own company.ShowHide
The company
MISP is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Open Source Threat Intelligence and Sharing Platform
- For
- incident analysts, security and ICT professionals or malware reversers
- Price stated
- free to use misp-project.org
- Free plan or trial
- Download now misp-project.org
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What MISP's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: misp-project.org, misp-project.org/security, misp-project.org/features. 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 MISP'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 MISP, 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 MISP by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where MISP 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 MISP, 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.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where MISP is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where MISP is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideAI models recommend MISP first in Threat intelligence 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.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
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.