Small businessgoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsNot ranked
1 category · Named, not rankedPrevalent Vendor Threat Monitor
1Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
1 / 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.
Standing
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor was named 1 time in TPRM, where UpGuard led with 55%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market46 of 87
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In tprm · 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party risk management | Security operations | 0% | 46 of 87 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 55% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · TPRM · by segment
Mid-marketnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 43 of 82, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPRM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 46 of 87, 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 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.
“Prevalent's free tier allows you to continuously monitor up to 20 vendors” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · 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.
No model argued against it.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor. 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 1 of the 1 answers that named Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
aravo.com1
fairtprm.com1
github.com1
learntprm.com1
mitratech.com1
mitti.com1
processunity.com1
reddit.com1
scytale.ai1
sprinto.com1
Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
prevalent.net is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.ShowHide
Search and answers
prevalent.net is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “third-party risk management platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “third-party risk management platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Organic visits to its site
- about 0 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 2 · 0 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 985
- 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
0%
rank 46 of 87 in TPRM
Segment leader
55%
UpGuard
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 1 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 1 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 prevalent.net
7,345
subdomains included
Content
6,138
counted in the table below
Documentation
4
Product · Integration
400 · 3
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 4,052 | 0 | 2025-12-19 | TPRM, GRC | |
| News or press | 1,077 | 0 | 2020-10-07 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 384 | 0 | 2020-06-18 | TPRM, GRC | |
| Report or ebook | 154 | 0 | 2021-08-11 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Podcast or video | 125 | 0 | 2020-05-15 | TPRM, GRC | |
| Case study | 106 | 0 | 2022-05-25 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Conference or event | 95 | 0 | 2018-08-22 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Glossary or explainer | 65 | 0 | 2023-11-17 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Comparison | 54 | 0 | 2025-08-10 | TPRM, GRC | |
| Template or tool | 26 | 0 | 2026-04-21 |
Most recent
- 2026-04-21How to evaluate managed bill review software template or tool
- 2025-12-19Tap workflow automation software blog
- 2025-08-10Third party risk management inherent vs residual risk comparison
- 2025-03-06Background check laws by state blog
- 2025-01-29Embedding dei checklist template or tool
- 2023-11-17What is hr automation software glossary or explainer
Events in person
Last twelve months
- March 11, 2026The Future State of the Legal IndustryNew York, United States · attended
- March 11, 2026Where Legal Leaders RiseAt the Peak, New York, United States · hosted
- March 9, 2026 to March 12, 2026Legalweek 2026Javits Center, New York, United States · exhibited
As the event pages on prevalent.net state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page prevalent.net 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor; a claim can dispute any of them.
Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor (Free Tier via Mitratech) 1
Follow Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor
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
Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- continuous monitoring engine
- For
- organizations
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: prevalent.net. 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor'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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor, 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor 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 Prevalent Vendor Threat Monitor, 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.