Every category where a model named Obsidian 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
SaaS security posture management	Security operations	2%	17 of 95	33%	9	under 10 labels · led by Wing Security at 30%
IT documentation	IT operations and endpoint	0%	66 of 92	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Hudu at 17%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Obsidian 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 Obsidian 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	0	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	1	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	0	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	0	1	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

Direct7 labels1

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained7 labels1

Negative9 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 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.

“Wing Security or Obsidian often provide the best balance of capability, usability, and price” Kimi K2 · SSPM · scale prompt · first choice

“"AppOmni and Obsidian lead enterprise SSPM depth."” Muse Glimmer 30B · SSPM · comparative prompt · alternative

“Obsidian (behavioral depth)” Grok 4.20 · SSPM · negative 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.

“Obsidian is explicitly identity-centric SSPM + ITDR. If you only want preventive config drift and remediation, you may be paying for detection capability you don't need.” Muse Glimmer 30B · SSPM · negative prompt · soft negative

“A newer platform with a smaller customer base than established competitors... the breadth of SaaS application coverage hasn't yet matched the widest players.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SSPM · negative prompt · soft negative

“worth evaluating if you want a broader SaaS security platform comparison, but their depth can vary by app and use case” GPT-5.4 mini · SSPM · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Obsidian, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Obsidian was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

AppOmni31 of 388Not among the top eight

Grip Security16 of 383Not among the top eight

Adaptive Shield13 of 381Not among the top eight

Nudge Security10 of 383Not among the top eight

CrowdStrike Falcon Shield10 of 382Not among the top eight

CrowdStrike9 of 380Not among the top eight

Wing8 of 381Not among the top eight

Wing Security7 of 384Not among the top eight

DoControl7 of 380Not among the top eight

Valence Security6 of 380Not 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 Obsidian. 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 35 of the 38 answers that named Obsidian and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gbhackers.com20

cyberpress.org19

startupstash.com19

scmgalaxy.com16

guideflow.com15

us.fitgap.com13

docontrol.io11

busistack.com10

cipherssecurity.com10

itechguides.com10

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

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/sspm-tools-by-business-size-219

gbhackers.com/best-sspm-compared19

startupstash.com/best-sspm-platforms19

scmgalaxy.com/tutorials/top-10-saas-security-posture-management-sspm-features-pros-cons-co16

guideflow.com/blog/sspm-software15

cipherssecurity.com/best-sspm-platform-2026-comparison10

us.fitgap.com/search/saas-security-posture-management-sspm-solutions/small-business10

vcso.ai/learn/best-sspm-tools-202610

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where Obsidian stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 368,000 a month (“obsidian”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 38,660 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 17 of 95 in SSPM

Segment leader

30%

Wing Security

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 38 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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.

Follow Obsidian

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

where Obsidian 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 Obsidian, 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.