Every category where a model named Netskope DLP 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
Data loss prevention	Security operations	2%	8 of 84	5%	22	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Netskope DLP yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Netskope DLP across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	0	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	2	0	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	2	0	1	4
Kimi K2	0	2	0	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	0	0	2

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

Direct6 labels1

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative20 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained5 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labels1

Negative11 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative55 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 4 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.

“Specialized Mid-Market Players (e.g., Lookout, Netskope, Mimecast): These often offer better ease-of-use and faster deployment for companies under 1,000 employees.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DLP · scale prompt · first choice

“Focus instead on modern, lightweight alternatives such as ... cloud-delivered SSE/SASE vendors (e.g., Netskope, Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DLP · negative prompt · alternative

“Strong cloud-native and SaaS-focused options (e.g., Netskope, Strac, Forcepoint, Proofpoint, Mimecast) may fit better.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · DLP · scale prompt · alternative

“Netskope One DLP if your company is more cloud/SaaS-heavy and needs broader coverage outside the Microsoft stack” GPT-5.4 mini · DLP · paraphrase 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.

“these platforms should be avoided if your primary data resides on-premises or in traditional file shares” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DLP · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Netskope DLP, over the 55 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Netskope DLP was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Purview DLP51 of 5519Not in the top three

Forcepoint DLP48 of 554Not in the top three

Symantec Data Loss Prevention42 of 551Not in the top three

Zscaler29 of 550Not in the top three

Proofpoint Enterprise DLP27 of 551Not in the top three

Cyberhaven21 of 553Not in the top three

Nightfall AI15 of 553Not in the top three

Varonis14 of 550Not in the top three

Strac12 of 555Not in the top three

Safetica8 of 551Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 Netskope DLP. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 41 of the 55 answers that named Netskope DLP and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com32

strac.io25

forcepoint.com23

underdefense.com20

proofpoint.com16

learn.g2.com15

cyberhaven.com14

miniorange.com14

currentware.com13

decryptiondigest.com11

183 of the 183 domain citations in answers naming Netskope DLP came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/data-loss-prevention31

underdefense.com/blog/dlp-solutions20

forcepoint.com/blog/insights/best-dlp-software19

learn.g2.com/best-data-loss-prevention-software15

miniorange.com/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-tools14

currentware.com/blog/best-data-loss-prevention-software13

strac.io/blog/top-7-data-loss-prevention-solutions-comparison-and-dlp-evaluation-checklist13

strac.io/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-dlp-tools13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Netskope DLP

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Netskope DLP; a claim can dispute any of them.

Netskope 15Netskope One DLP 2

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 Netskope DLP'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 Netskope DLP, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at netskope.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.