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 69 → 74 of 84
Ping · 1 category · RankedPing Identity Governance
25Judge labels
0First choices
11Negative labels
10 / 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
0% in IGA for enterprise buyers
Rank 61 of 76 in the mid-market standing
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 43% of its 7 labels there were negative.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business78 of 89
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market61 of 76
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise55 of 76
0%11 labels
criticized challenger
In iga · 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 Ping Identity Governance 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity governance | Identity and access | 0% | 61 of 76 | 43% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Entra ID Governance at 25% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Ping Identity Governance held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · IGA · 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 61 → 57 of 71
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 15 → 59 of 70
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IGA | 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 61 of 76, 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 Ping Identity Governance 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 Ping Identity Governance 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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
Direct3 labelsNone
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative3 labelsNone
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained7 labelsNone
Negative7 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 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.
“Modern IGA suites | Okta IGA, Ping Identity | Companies already invested in that ecosystem” DeepSeek V4 Flash · IGA · scale 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.
“using an SSO provider as your *primary* governance engine often results in heavy manual workarounds” Qwen 3.7 Flash · IGA · negative prompt · soft negative
“"extreme caution" for heavy reliance due to 2024 Ping-ForgeRock merger uncertainties” Grok 4.20 · IGA · negative prompt · soft negative
“if federation-heavy, but more enterprise” Grok 4.20 · IGA · direct prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Ping Identity Governance, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Ping Identity Governance was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Ping Identity Governance, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Ping Identity Governance 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 Ping Identity Governance. 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 21 of the 25 answers that named Ping Identity Governance and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
lumos.com12
corma.io10
expertinsights.com10
zluri.com10
aimultiple.com9
securityboulevard.com8
startwithidentity.com8
c1.ai7
cybersecuritynews.com7
idenhq.com7
Eighty-eight of the eighty-eight domain citations in answers naming Ping Identity Governance came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
pingidentity.com ranks 5 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Ping Identity Governance takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Entra ID Governance takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
pingidentity.com ranks 5 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Ping Identity Governance takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Entra ID Governance takes 25%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “identity governance platform”
5
Position for “identity governance platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 10 a month (“ping identity governance”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Its company's site
- pingidentity.com shared with Ping's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 73,959 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 9,378 · 940 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 10,341
- Paid Google search
- 2 searches its ads show for, about 2 clicks and $30 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 61 of 76 in IGA
Segment leader
25%
Microsoft Entra ID Governance
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 25 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 21 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.
Names read as Ping Identity Governance
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Ping Identity Governance; a claim can dispute any of them.
Ping Identity 4Ping Identity/ForgeRock 1PingIdentity 1
Follow Ping Identity Governance
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
Ping is the company behind Ping Identity Governance.ShowHide
The company
Ping is the company behind Ping Identity Governance.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Cloud-native Ping Identity Governance helps solve security and compliance challenges at scale.
- Not stated on the pages read
- Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Ping Identity Governance's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: hub.pingidentity.com/governance, hub.pingidentity.com/governance/4051-ping-identity-governance, hub.pingidentity.com/datasheets/4051-ping-identity-governance, hub.pingidentity.com/datasheets/4204-ping-advanced-identity-software, hub.pingidentity.com/governance/4053-reimagining-identity-governance. 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 Ping Identity Governance'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 Ping Identity Governance, 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 Ping Identity Governance by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Ping Identity Governance 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 Ping Identity Governance, 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.