Every category where a model named Netskope Private Access 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
Zero trust network access	Network and edge	0%	14 of 71	0%	10	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Netskope Private Access 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 Private Access across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative15 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative29 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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.

“If your chief concern is preventing data loss to SaaS and AI tools, choose Netskope.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ZTNA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Universal ZTNA, AI-powered policy optimization, strong for legacy app access.” Mistral Small · ZTNA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Netskope Private Access — strong data protection depth (CASB/DLP origin)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ZTNA · comparative prompt · alternative

“Gartner SSE Leader (top Ability to Execute in 2024); excels in innovation.” Grok 4.1 Fast · ZTNA · comparative 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Netskope Private Access, over the 29 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Netskope Private Access was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Zscaler Private Access28 of 2916Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access25 of 291Not in the top three

Twingate16 of 292Not in the top three

Cloudflare One14 of 293Not in the top three

Check Point Harmony SASE12 of 290Not in the top three

Akamai Enterprise Application Access11 of 290Not in the top three

Cisco Secure Access11 of 290Not in the top three

Appgate SDP9 of 290Not in the top three

Cato Networks9 of 290Not in the top three

Cloudflare Access9 of 290Not 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 Private Access. 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 23 of the 29 answers that named Netskope Private Access and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

aimultiple.com19

akamai.com14

cybersecuritynews.com14

expertinsights.com14

cipherssecurity.com13

guptadeepak.com12

gartner.com11

portnox.com11

seanfraser.io10

devopsschool.com9

127 of the 127 domain citations in answers naming Netskope Private Access came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

aimultiple.com/ztna-solutions19

akamai.com/site/en/documents/analyst-report/2024/kuppingercole-ztna-analyst-report.pdf14

cybersecuritynews.com/best-ztna-solutions14

expertinsights.com/network-security/the-top-zero-trust-network-access-solutions14

cipherssecurity.com/best-ztna-platforms-202612

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-ztna-solutions-202610

seanfraser.io/blog/2024-03-26-insiders-guide-top-10-ztna-vendors-202410

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-zero-trust-network-access-ztna-features-pros-cons-comparison9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Netskope Private Access

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

Netskope Private Access (NPA) 3

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 Private Access'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 Private Access, 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.