Index › Products › PerimeterX · October 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

PerimeterX

20Judge labels

2First choices

5Negative labels

8 / 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

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. PerimeterX was named 5 times in Bot management and 1 other category, where Cloudflare Bot Management led with 56%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business78 of 84

under the label threshold

Mid-market10 of 83

under the label threshold

Enterprise10 of 75

under the label threshold

In bot management · 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 PerimeterX 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
Bot management	Network and edge	2%	10 of 83	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare Bot Management at 56%
Client-side protection	Security operations	0%	100 of 120	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by cside at 13%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for PerimeterX 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 PerimeterX across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	2	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase3 labels1

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained9 labels1

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 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.

“often considered the top two contenders for this segment due to their balance of ease-of-use, effectiveness, and pricing structure” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Bot management · paraphrase prompt · first choice

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 PerimeterX, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PerimeterX was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cloudflare Bot Management14 of 206Not among the top eight

Akamai Bot Manager14 of 201Not among the top eight

DataDome14 of 200Not among the top eight

Imperva Advanced Bot Protection12 of 201Not among the top eight

F5 Distributed Cloud Bot Defense5 of 200Not among the top eight

Kasada4 of 200Not among the top eight

Radware Bot Manager4 of 200Not among the top eight

AWS WAF3 of 200Not among the top eight

AWS WAF + Bot Control3 of 200Not among the top eight

Arkose Labs3 of 200Not 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 PerimeterX. 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 11 of the 20 answers that named PerimeterX and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

radware.com7

cequence.ai6

cloudflare.com6

securityboulevard.com6

cside.com5

akamai.com4

comparitech.com3

developers.cloudflare.com3

geetest.com3

gitnux.org3

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

Pages cited

securityboulevard.com/2024/02/13-top-bot-management-software-in-the-market-for-20245

cloudflare.com/products/bot-management4

cside.com/blog/best-bot-detection-software4

akamai.com/products/bot-manager3

cequence.ai/learn/best-bot-management-solutions-for-large-enterprises3

cloudflare.com/plans3

geetest.com/en/article/best-bot-management-software3

humansecurity.com/learn/blog/how-to-choose-the-right-bot-management-solution-a-buyers-guid3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

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

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 590 a month (“perimeterx”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 6 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 10 of 83 in bot management

Segment leader

56%

Cloudflare Bot Management

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 20 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.

Names read as PerimeterX

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as PerimeterX; a claim can dispute any of them.

PerimeterX (now part of HUMAN) 1

Follow PerimeterX

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

where PerimeterX 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 PerimeterX, 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.