IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › OWASP Core Rule Set · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

OWASP Core Rule Set

6Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. OWASP Core Rule Set was named 3 times in WAF, where Cloudflare led with 55%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business58 of 77

under the label threshold

Mid-market73 of 87

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

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
Web application firewalls	Network and edge	0%	73 of 87	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare at 55%

Movement

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

By model

How each model treated OWASP Core Rule Set across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
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	1	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative6 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.

“Technical team, full control, $0 budget | ModSecurity/OWASP CRS” DeepSeek V4 Flash · WAF · 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.

“The default rules are notoriously aggressive. They frequently block valid traffic (False Positives)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · WAF · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OWASP Core Rule Set, over the 6 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ModSecurity6 of 60Not in the top three

Cloudflare5 of 64Not in the top three

AWS WAF4 of 61Not in the top three

Sucuri4 of 61Not in the top three

Akamai3 of 60Not in the top three

Imperva3 of 60Not in the top three

Barracuda2 of 60Not in the top three

Cloudflare WAF1 of 61Not in the top three

Akamai App & API Protector1 of 60Not in the top three

Azure Firewall WAF1 of 60Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 5 of the 6 answers that named OWASP Core Rule Set and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

comparitech.com4

cyberpress.org4

wafplanet.com4

dev.to3

geekflare.com3

developers.cloudflare.com2

indusface.com2

acunetix.com1

appsentinels.ai1

blog.canadianwebhosting.com1

Twenty-five of the twenty-five domain citations in answers naming OWASP Core Rule Set came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

comparitech.com/net-admin/best-web-application-firewall4

cyberpress.org/waf-solutions-by-business-size4

geekflare.com/cybersecurity/best-web-application-firewall3

wafplanet.com/ultimate-waf-guide-20263

wafplanet.com/best-waf-for/small-business2

acunetix.com/blog/articles/web-application-firewalls1

appsentinels.ai/blog/top-25-web-application-firewalls-wafs-and-best-alternatives-for-cloud1

blog.canadianwebhosting.com/waf-vs-firewall-vs-managed-security-small-teams1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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.

OWASP Core Rule Set (CRS) 3

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.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at owasp.org is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.