Every category where a model named Netskope 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%	71 of 71	47%	15	criticized challenger
Email security	Security operations	0%	19 of 71	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Office 365 at 31%
SD-WAN	Network and edge	0%	19 of 53	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Fortinet Secure SD-WAN at 41%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Netskope 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 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	0	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	1	1	4
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	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

Paraphrase5 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained11 labelsNone

Negative14 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative40 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.

“such as Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Proofpoint, Mimecast, or Netskope.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email security · negative prompt · first choice

“Netskope Borderless... all have mature ecosystems and integrated security.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · SD-WAN · negative prompt · alternative

“For advanced data security, consider Netskope.” Mistral Small · ZTNA · direct 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.

“Cross-tenant vulnerabilities with leaked enrollment tokens | Attackers could compromise ANY organization” Kimi K2 · ZTNA · negative prompt · hard negative

“Netskope (CVE-2024-7401): Suffered from an authentication bypass during Identity Provider (IdP) enrollment and cross-tenant vulnerabilities” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ZTNA · negative prompt · soft negative

“Netskope | Auth bypass in IdP enrollment (CVE-2024-7401), cross-tenant impersonation via leaked OrgKeys, privilege escalation.” Grok 4.1 Fast · ZTNA · negative prompt · soft negative

“Multiple client-side vulnerabilities disclosed in the same DEF CON research... they directly undermine the trust model.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ZTNA · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Netskope, over the 40 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Netskope was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Zscaler27 of 403Not in the top three

Cloudflare One15 of 407Not in the top three

Check Point Harmony SASE15 of 400Not in the top three

Fortinet12 of 400Not in the top three

Twingate11 of 403Not in the top three

Tailscale11 of 401Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks7 of 404Not in the top three

Zscaler Private Access7 of 402Not in the top three

Cisco7 of 400Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access7 of 400Not 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. 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 28 of the 40 answers that named Netskope and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

portnox.com16

cybersecuritynews.com12

expertinsights.com12

gartner.com12

cyberpress.org11

zendikt.com10

akamai.com9

zerotrust.cio.com9

aimultiple.com8

petronellatech.com8

107 of the 107 domain citations in answers naming Netskope came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

expertinsights.com/network-security/the-top-zero-trust-network-access-solutions11

cybersecuritynews.com/best-ztna-solutions10

zendikt.com/category/ztna-software10

akamai.com/site/en/documents/analyst-report/2024/kuppingercole-ztna-analyst-report.pdf9

aimultiple.com/ztna-solutions8

portnox.com/cybersecurity-101/zero-trust/who-are-the-best-ztna-providers8

zerotrust.cio.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2024/08/Gartner-Reprint.pdf8

cipherssecurity.com/best-ztna-platforms-20267

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Netskope

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

Netskope (Private Access) 1Netskope Borderless 1

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'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, 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.