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 45 → 47 of 62
1 category · RankedOWASP Core Rule Set
12Judge labels
2First choices
2Negative 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.
Best standing
4% in WAF for mid-market buyers
Rank 4 of 82 in the mid-market standing
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 6 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business25 of 75
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market4 of 82
4%6 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
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 OWASP Core Rule Set 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 | 4% | 4 of 82 | 0% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare WAF at 69% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, OWASP Core Rule Set held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · WAF · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 54 → 5 of 80
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAF | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 54 → 4 of 82 |
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 OWASP Core Rule Set 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 OWASP Core Rule Set 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 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 0 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative2 labelsNone
Budget-constrained8 labels2
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative2 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 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.
“ModSecurity with OWASP CRS is the de-facto standard free engine.” Muse Glimmer 30B · WAF · budget prompt · first choice
“BunkerWeb or ModSecurity + CRS are excellent choices” GLM 4.7 FlashX · WAF · budget prompt · first choice
“Strong Alternative #2: ModSecurity + OWASP Core Rule Set (Free, Open Source)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · WAF · budget prompt · alternative
“Want open source and maximum control? Use ModSecurity + OWASP CRS” GPT-5.4 mini · WAF · comparative 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 OWASP Core Rule Set, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP Core Rule Set was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as OWASP Core Rule Set, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP Core Rule Set 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 OWASP Core Rule Set. 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 12 of the 12 answers that named OWASP Core Rule Set and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
indusface.com6
wafplanet.com6
developers.cloudflare.com5
mgsoftware.nl5
comparitech.com4
geekflare.com4
sourceforge.net4
cloudflare.com3
libhunt.com3
softwaretestinghelp.com3
Forty-three of the forty-three domain citations in answers naming OWASP Core Rule Set came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
owasp.org ranks 7 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, OWASP Core Rule Set takes 4% of first choices and Cloudflare WAF takes 69%.ShowHide
Search and answers
owasp.org ranks 7 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, OWASP Core Rule Set takes 4% 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”
7
- Organic visits to its site
- about 365,222 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 104,405 · 3,003 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 65,251
- 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
4%
rank 4 of 82 in WAF
Segment leader
69%
Cloudflare WAF
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 12 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 12 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 owasp.org
893
subdomains included
Content
154
counted in the table below
Documentation
1
Product · Integration
30 · 216
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 86 | 0 | 2025-08-05 | ||
| Conference or event | 35 | 0 | 2025-11-14 | ||
| News or press | 18 | 0 | 2024-11-20 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 7 | 0 | 2026-05-13 | ||
| Podcast or video | 4 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 3 | 0 | 2024-05-08 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-05-13Gen ai project application security risk virtual summit webinar or virtual event
- 2025-11-14Genai security project agentic ai summit europe conference or event
- 2025-08-30Genai security project uae summit hackathon conference or event
- 2025-08-28Owasp 2025 global appsec usa washington dc conference or event
- 2025-08-27Gen ai application security risk virtual conference webinar or virtual event
- 2025-08-06Owasp genai agentic security top 10 global kick off livestream webinar or virtual event
Events in person
Upcoming
- November 5, 2026 to November 6, 2026OWASP Global AppSec USA 2026Hyatt Regency San Francisco, San Francisco, USA · hosts
Last twelve months
- March 25, 2026OWASP GenAI Security Summit 2026 @ RSAC 2026 – Safeguarding GenAI Agents & Anonymous Risk in 2026Moscone Conference Center – Moscone South – Room 303, San Francisco, USA · hosted
- March 25, 2026OWASP GenAI Security Open Workshop & Agentic Hackathon at RSAC’26DigitalJungleSF, 972 Mission St, San Francisco, USA · hosted
- March 25, 2026OWASP GenAI Security RSAC’26 Jungle Party of The CenturyDigitalJungleSF, 972 Mission St, San Francisco, USA · attended
- March 23, 2026OWASP GenAI Security – RSAC’26 Kickoff PartyJames Bong Building, Market St Floor 2, San Francisco, USA · hosted
As the event pages on owasp.org state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page owasp.org 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. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as OWASP Core Rule Set
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as OWASP Core Rule Set; a claim can dispute any of them.
ModSecurity + OWASP Core Rule Set 2ModSecurity + OWASP Core Rule Set (CRS) 1ModSecurity / OWASP Core Rule Set 1OWASP Core Rule Set (CRS) 1
Follow OWASP Core Rule Set
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
OWASP Core Rule Set is its own company.ShowHide
The company
OWASP Core Rule Set is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The 1st Line of Defense Against Web Application Attacks
- Price stated
- free to use owasp.org/projects/crs
- Free plan or trial
- free to use owasp.org/projects/crs
- Customers named
- AdobeAppfendSecuvera GmgHOligo SecurityGitGuardianChainloopGuidePoint SecuritySecurity Journey
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting
What OWASP Core Rule Set's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: owasp.org/projects/crs, owasp.org, owasp.org/security. 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 OWASP Core Rule Set'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 OWASP Core Rule Set, 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 OWASP Core Rule Set by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where OWASP Core Rule Set 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 OWASP Core Rule Set, 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.