Index › Products › Protegrity · October 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Protegrity

11Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

6 / 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Protegrity was named 3 times in Data masking and 1 other category, where DATPROF led with 17%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business115 of 152

under the label threshold

Mid-market44 of 140

under the label threshold

Enterprise23 of 126

under the label threshold

In data masking · 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 Protegrity 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
Data masking and test data management	Data platform	0%	44 of 140	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by DATPROF at 17%
Web application firewalls	Network and edge	0%	81 of 82	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Cloudflare WAF at 69%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

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

ShowHide

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative11 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.

“Alternatives if masking falls short: Tokenization (Protegrity) or data clean rooms.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Data masking · negative 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.

“Historical reviews note blocking valid traffic with unhelpful logs and poor interfaces—avoid unless updated.” Grok 4.1 Fast · WAF · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Protegrity, over the 11 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Protegrity was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Oracle Data Masking and Subsetting8 of 110Not among the top eight

Delphix7 of 114Not among the top eight

Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud7 of 112Not among the top eight

K2View Test Data Management5 of 112Not among the top eight

IRI FieldShield4 of 110Not among the top eight

Broadcom Test Data Manager3 of 110Not among the top eight

Perforce Delphix3 of 110Not among the top eight

Tonic.ai3 of 110Not among the top eight

PostgreSQL Anonymizer2 of 111Not among the top eight

BMC AMI DevX2 of 110Not 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 Protegrity. 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 11 answers that named Protegrity and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ovaledge.com8

g2.com6

iri.com6

peerspot.com6

atlan.com5

hevodata.com5

k2view.com5

thectoclub.com5

airbyte.com4

gartner.com4

Fifty-four of the fifty-four domain citations in answers naming Protegrity came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ovaledge.com/blog/data-masking-tools7

iri.com/support/data-education-center/the-top-15-data-masking-tools-in-20266

peerspot.com/categories/data-masking6

atlan.com/data-masking-tools5

hevodata.com/learn/data-masking-tools5

k2view.com/blog/data-masking-tools-comparison5

thectoclub.com/tools/best-data-masking-software5

airbyte.com/top-etl-tools-for-sources/data-masking-tools-to-protect-pii-stay-compliant4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

protegrity.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Protegrity takes 0% of first choices and DATPROF takes 17%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “data masking tool”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “data masking tools”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 1,000 a month (“protegrity”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 35 a month

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 44 of 140 in data masking

Segment leader

17%

DATPROF

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 11 answers
Its own site cited: in 11 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.

Follow Protegrity

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

where Protegrity 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 Protegrity, 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.