| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity threat detection and response | Identity and access | 2% | 7 of 105 | 5% | 20 | accepted challenger |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Okta Identity Threat Protection is the top recommendation due to its maturity, ease of use, and strong ecosystem” Mistral Small · ITDR · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Integrated Ecosystem Giants: Microsoft (Entra ID Protection + Defender), Okta (Identity Security Platform), Ping Identity.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · ITDR · scale prompt · alternative
“Want SaaS-native identity threat detection and access risk visibility → Reco / Okta Identity Threat Protection” Muse Glimmer 30B · ITDR · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Okta is especially relevant when the threat is an attacker abusing an active workforce session” GPT-6 Luna · ITDR · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“exceptional for SaaS and cloud environments, but they do not natively monitor or protect on-prem legacy authentication protocols” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ITDR · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 45 of the 48 answers that named Okta Identity Threat Protection and are not a share of its labels.
180 of the 180 domain citations in answers naming Okta Identity Threat Protection came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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.
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.
What Okta Identity Threat Protection's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: learning.okta.com/identity-threat-protection, learning.okta.com/first-look-identity-threat-protection, learning.okta.com/mitigate-identity-threats-with-workflows, learning.okta.com/implement-continuous-protection-with-okta-identity-threat-protection, okta.com/identity-101/ai-threat-detection. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Okta Identity Threat Protection'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 Okta Identity Threat Protection, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Okta Identity Threat Protection by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: