Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 13 → 11 of 62
2 categories · Named, not rankedopen-appsec
18Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
7 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
6 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. open-appsec was named 6 times in WAF and 1 other category, where Cloudflare WAF led with 69%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business13 of 75
0%4 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market20 of 82
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise13 of 90
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
In waf · 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 open-appsec 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web application firewalls | Network and edge | 0% | 20 of 82 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare WAF at 69% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Bot management | Network and edge | 0% | 53 of 83 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare Bot Management at 56% |
Movement
Since September 2026, open-appsec held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · WAF · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 11 → 20 of 80
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 17 → 13 of 77
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAF | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 11 → 20 of 82 |
| Bot management | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 53 of 83, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated open-appsec across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated open-appsec 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
Direct5 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative4 labelsNone
Budget-constrained6 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative3 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.
“open-appsec is available as open-source and is best for DevOps teams and cloud-native deployments” Claude Haiku 4.5 · WAF · budget prompt · alternative
“Leading in balanced accuracy (99.139% in Critical Profile), machine learning-driven” Mistral Small · WAF · comparative prompt · alternative
“Open-source ML-based WAF” Kimi K2 · Bot management · budget 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 open-appsec, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and open-appsec was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as open-appsec, over the 18 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and open-appsec was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 open-appsec. 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 18 of the 18 answers that named open-appsec and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
openappsec.ioYour site17
radware.com13
comparitech.com11
wafplanet.com11
cybersecuritynews.com8
gartner.com8
geekflare.com8
indusface.com6
cloudflare.com5
mgsoftware.nl5
Seventy-five of the ninety-two domain citations in answers naming open-appsec came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
openappsec.io ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, open-appsec takes 0% of first choices and Cloudflare WAF takes 69%.ShowHide
Search and answers
openappsec.io ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, open-appsec takes 0% of first choices and Cloudflare WAF takes 69%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “web application firewall”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “web application firewalls”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 90 a month (“open-appsec”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,651 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 531 · 27 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 726
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
Ads on Google
None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 20 of 82 in WAF
Segment leader
69%
Cloudflare WAF
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 18 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 18 of the answers that named it
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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on openappsec.io
280
subdomains included
Content
141
counted in the table below
Documentation
118
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 105 | 0 | 2026-01-18 | WAF, API gateways | |
| Comparison | 30 | undated | WAF | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 4 | 0 | 2026-04-21 | ||
| Report or ebook | 1 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-04-21What is open appsec glossary or explainer
- 2026-01-18Best waf solutions in 2026 real world comparison blog
- 2025-12-04Zero day protection for react2shell cve 2025 55182 blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page openappsec.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as open-appsec
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as open-appsec; a claim can dispute any of them.
open-appsec / CloudGuard WAF 1
Follow open-appsec
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.
The company
open-appsec is its own company.ShowHide
The company
open-appsec is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Automatic Open Source WAF & API Security
- For
- Web apps & APIs
- Price stated
- Three straightforward options. No hidden costs. openappsec.io/pricing-1
- Starting price
- 99 USD/month openappsec.io/pricing-1
- Free plan or trial
- Free Unlimited HTTP Req openappsec.io/pricing-1
- Certifications
- NSS-Certified IPS
- Customers named
- Proxeem
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, hosting
What open-appsec's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: openappsec.io, openappsec.io/pricing-1. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 open-appsec'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 open-appsec, 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 open-appsec by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where open-appsec 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 open-appsec, 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.