Index › Products › Noname · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Noname

18Judge labels

1First choices

10Negative labels

6 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Noname was named 7 times in API security, where Aikido Security led with 12%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business77 of 80

under the label threshold

Mid-market78 of 93

under the label threshold

Enterprise15 of 82

under the label threshold

In api security · 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 Noname 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
API security platforms	Security operations	0%	78 of 93	43%	7	under 10 labels · led by Aikido Security at 12%

Movement

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

By model

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

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	2	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	0	0	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

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labels1

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“Akamai API Security (formerly Noname) | Full lifecycle, 150+ CI/CD tests, vendor-neutral, large ecosystem | Pricing complexity” DeepSeek V4 Flash · API security · scale prompt · alternative

“Akamai API Security / Noname is called out for "build security into their APIs from the start"” Muse Glimmer 30B · API security · 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.

“Avoid Salt Security ($100k+/year) and Noname ($150k+/year) unless you have enterprise budget” Kimi K2 · API security · direct prompt · hard negative

“premium enterprise API security platforms (like Salt Security, Akamai/Noname, or Traceable) are usually out of reach” Gemini 3.5 Flash · API security · budget prompt · soft negative

“Good if you're already on Akamai's CDN; otherwise complex” Kimi K2 · API security · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Noname, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Noname was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Akamai API Security15 of 181Not among the top eight

Salt Security14 of 180Not among the top eight

Traceable AI7 of 182Not among the top eight

Imperva API Security7 of 180Not among the top eight

Traceable7 of 180Not among the top eight

Wallarm API Security7 of 180Not among the top eight

StackHawk6 of 181Not among the top eight

42Crunch6 of 180Not among the top eight

Beagle Security5 of 180Not among the top eight

Cloudflare API Shield5 of 180Not among the top eight

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 Noname. 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 17 of the 18 answers that named Noname and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

radware.com13

escape.tech10

beaglesecurity.com9

akamai.com8

indusface.com8

learn.g2.com8

sourceforge.net7

appsecsanta.com6

us.fitgap.com6

zuplo.com6

No domain is on file for Noname, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

radware.com/cyberpedia/application-security/choosing-api-security-solutions9

escape.tech/blog/best-api-security-tools-20248

learn.g2.com/best-api-security-tools8

radware.com/cyberpedia/application-security/api-security-platforms6

zuplo.com/learning-center/best-api-security-tools-20266

akamai.com/products/api-security5

beaglesecurity.com/blog/article/best-api-security-tools.html5

indusface.com/blog/best-api-security-tools5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Noname

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

Akamai/Noname 4Noname / Akamai API Security 1

Follow Noname

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.

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 Noname'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 Noname, 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 Noname by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Noname 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 Noname, 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.