Every category where a model named Prophet Security 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
AI SOC agents	Security operations	2%	9 of 104	0%	24	accepted challenger
SOAR platforms	Security operations	0%	38 of 67	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Tines at 41%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
AI security platforms	Security operations	0%	128 of 233	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by SentinelOne Singularity at 11%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Prophet Security 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 Prophet Security 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	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	2	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	2	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	2
Grok 4.20	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	2	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	2
GPT-6 Luna	1	1	0	2
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	2	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

Direct10 labels2

Paraphrase16 labels3

Comparative25 labels5not counted in share

Budget-constrained8 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative10 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative72 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 11 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.

“Start with Dropzone AI, Prophet Security, or Radiant Security if building in-house capability” Grok 4.20 · AI SOC agents · direct prompt · first choice

“Have a mixed tool stack and want full autonomy? Look at Prophet Security.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · AI SOC agents · comparative prompt · first choice

“For a mixed-vendor stack, compare Dropzone, Prophet, and Qevlar.” GPT-6 Luna · AI SOC agents · comparative prompt · first choice

“AI analyst for triage, context gathering, reasoning, and prioritization. Reduces manual work” Grok 4.20 · AI SOC agents · comparative 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 Prophet Security, over the 72 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Prophet Security was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Dropzone AI55 of 7217Compare →

Torq31 of 723Compare →

Radiant Security29 of 723Compare →

Intezer AI SOC27 of 721Compare →

CrowdStrike Charlotte AI20 of 720Not among the top eight

Microsoft Security Copilot19 of 720Compare →

Huntress Managed EDR12 of 722Not among the top eight

Microsoft Sentinel12 of 720Not among the top eight

Conifers CognitiveSOC11 of 720Not among the top eight

SentinelOne Purple AI10 of 720Compare →

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 Prophet Security. 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 72 of the 72 answers that named Prophet Security and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

underdefense.com50

intezer.com39

prophetsecurity.aiYour site34

resources.rework.com31

swimlane.com28

d3security.com26

dropzone.ai22

securityboulevard.com22

paloaltonetworks.com20

g2.com18

256 of the 290 domain citations in answers naming Prophet Security came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

underdefense.com/blog/most-affordable-ai-soc-platforms27

intezer.com/blog/top-15-ai-soc-platforms-in-202625

swimlane.com/blog/best-ai-soc-platforms24

resources.rework.com/tools/ai-agents/best-ai-agents-for-cybersecurity-202623

prophetsecurity.ai/blog/top-5-ai-soc-analyst-platforms20

underdefense.com/blog/ai-soc-for-smb20

d3security.com/blog/best-agentic-soc-platforms16

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/ai-soc-tools-comparison13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

prophetsecurity.ai ranks first on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Prophet Security takes 2% of first choices and Dropzone AI takes 24%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “ai soc agent”

Position for “ai soc agents”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: not counted (“prophet security”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 0 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 1,142 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 274 · 40 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 915
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

69 ads · 37 text, 31 video, 1 image · 11 shown in the last 30 days

First shown August 2024, as Prophet Security, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 59 in the year, 10 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 9 of 104 in AI SOC agents

Segment leader

24%

Dropzone AI

First choices: 5 across its categories
Named in: 72 answers
Its own site cited: in 72 of the answers that named it

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.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on prophetsecurity.ai

184

subdomains included

Content

153

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

6 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	122	89	2026-09-29	SOAR, MDR
Glossary or explainer	8	8	2026-09-01	MFA
Case study	6	undated
Webinar or virtual event	6	undated
Podcast or video	5	undated
Comparison	4	3	2026-09-01	MDR, SIEM
Report or ebook	2	undated

Most recent

2026-09-29Citrix netscaler zero day blog
2026-09-28Ai security companies blog
2026-09-22Actionable threat intelligence blog
2026-09-22Clickfix attack blog
2026-09-15Agentic soar runtime decision blog
2026-09-10Ai soc key to solving persistent soc challenges blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page prophetsecurity.ai 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 Prophet Security

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

Prophet Security (Prophet AI) 3Prophet Security (AI Agent) 1

Follow Prophet Security

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

Prophet Security is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: AI SOC Platform with Agentic AI SOC Analyst
prophetsecurity.ai
For: the modern SOC
prophetsecurity.ai
Free plan or trial: Start your free POV. Setup takes 30 minutes or less. prophetsecurity.ai/use-cases/email
Integrations claimed: 200 prophetsecurity.ai
Certifications: SOC 2 Type IIISO/IEC 27001:2022ISO/IEC 42001:2023
Hosting: USGermanySwitzerlandJapanGlobal
Customers named: ZIPCabinetworksUpwindJBPCOJB Poindexter Co
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price

What Prophet Security's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: prophetsecurity.ai, trust.prophetsecurity.ai, prophetsecurity.ai/use-cases/email, prophetsecurity.ai/customers, prophetsecurity.ai/integrations. 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 Prophet Security'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 Prophet Security, 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 Prophet Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Prophet Security 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 Prophet Security, 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.