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 41 → 49 of 51
Ping · 5 categories · RankedPing Identity
277Judge labels
6First choices
52Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
5Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
6% in CIAM for enterprise buyers
Rank 6 of 44 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 23% of its 35 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Ping Identity →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business51 of 54
0%17 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market6 of 44
0%35 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise3 of 48
3%62 labels
accepted challenger
In workforce identity · 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce identity and SSO | Identity and access | 0% | 6 of 44 | 23% | 35 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Customer identity and access management | Identity and access | 0% | 15 of 70 | 24% | 29 | accepted challenger | ▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Multi-factor authentication | Identity and access | 0% | 10 of 77 | 0% | 14 | accepted challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Identity threat detection and response | Identity and access | 0% | 28 of 105 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by Huntress Managed ITDR at 51% | |
| Intelligent document processing | Data platform | 0% | 26 of 89 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Nanonets at 32% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Ping Identity held within the floor in all five categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Workforce identity · 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 8 → 6 of 38
Enterprise▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 3 of 46, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIAM | 4% | 0% | ▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 7 → 15 of 70 |
| MFA | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 10 of 77 |
| Workforce identity | 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 8 → 6 of 44 |
| ITDR | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 28 of 105, unchanged |
| Document processing | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 26 of 89, 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 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 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 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 11 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
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
Direct44 labelsNone
Paraphrase38 labels3
Comparative77 labels2not counted in share
Budget-constrained24 labels3
Scale-constrained46 labelsNone
Negative48 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative277 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 9 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.
“Ping Identity is federation-focused IAM and MFA ideal for large enterprises needing advanced SSO and hybrid deployment flexibility.” Muse Glimmer 30B · MFA · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose Ping Identity if you are a bank or insurer that requires strict on-premise control and complex fraud detection logic.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CIAM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Integrated Ecosystem Giants: Microsoft (Entra ID Protection + Defender), Okta (Identity Security Platform), Ping Identity.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · ITDR · scale prompt · alternative
“For enterprises or those needing advanced customization, LoginRadius or Ping Identity are excellent options.” Mistral Small · CIAM · paraphrase 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.
“Avoid: Unpatched ForgeRock/Ping Identity, legacy DIY identity infrastructure, and unpatched SaaS identity platforms.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CIAM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Verdict: Avoid unless you are a Fortune 500 company with highly complex legacy/on-premise hybrid environments” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CIAM · negative prompt · hard negative
“It is complex, has a steep learning curve, and usually requires professional services or a dedicated identity team to set up and maintain.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CIAM · comparative prompt · soft negative
“You should be extremely cautious about organizations heavily reliant on these platforms due to their recent merger” Mistral Small · Workforce identity · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Ping Identity, over the 277 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Ping Identity was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Ping Identity, over the 277 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Ping Identity 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. 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 251 of the 277 answers that named Ping Identity and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
startwithidentity.com125
securityboulevard.com111
cybersecuritynews.com88
expertinsights.com87
checkthat.ai68
guptadeepak.com67
okta.com64
siit.io64
guideflow.com57
loginradius.com57
788 of the 788 domain citations in answers naming Ping Identity came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
pingidentity.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Ping Identity takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Entra ID takes 46%.ShowHide
Search and answers
pingidentity.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Ping Identity takes 0% of first choices and Microsoft Entra ID takes 46%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “workforce identity platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “workforce identity platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 12,100 a month (“ping identity”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 249 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 6 of 44 in workforce identity
Segment leader
46%
Microsoft Entra ID
- First choices
- 6 across its categories
- Named in
- 277 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 251 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
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Ping Identity; a claim can dispute any of them.
Ping 5Ping Identity (including ForgeRock) 2Ping Identity / PingOne 2ForgeRock / Ping Identity 1Ping Identity & ForgeRock 1Ping Identity (ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (Ping Workforce360) 1Ping Identity (PingOne Essential) 1Ping Identity (PingOne for Workforce) 1Ping Identity (incl. ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (now including ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (with ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity / PingOne for Workforce 1Ping Identity Platform 1Ping Identity/ForgeRock 1Ping Identity/PingOne 1PingID / Ping Identity 1PingIdentity / PingFederate 1
Follow Ping Identity
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.ShowHide
The company
Ping is the company behind Ping Identity.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Ping Identity and Google Cloud partnership helps enable zero trust for the modern enterprise.
- For
- modern enterprise
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Ping Identity's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: hub.pingidentity.com/briefs/4072-ping-google-cloud, hub.pingidentity.com/partners/4072-ping-google-cloud, hub.pingidentity.com/governance/4051-ping-identity-governance, hub.pingidentity.com/datasheets/4051-ping-identity-governance, hub.pingidentity.com/briefs/4405-ping-google-cloud-healthcare. 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'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, 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 by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Ping Identity 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, 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.