| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic application security testing | Developer platform | 0% | 23 of 58 | 33% | 9 | under 10 labels · led by OWASP ZAP at 29% |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“It's worth evaluating if centralized Qualys asset and risk management matters to you.” GPT-6 Luna · DAST · comparative prompt · alternative
“Enterprise automation: Invicti, Qualys WAS, or Burp Suite Enterprise” MiniMax M2.5 · DAST · comparative prompt · alternative
“Leaders like ... Qualys WAS... score higher on accuracy” Grok 4.1 Fast · DAST · negative prompt · alternative
“Cloud-based enterprise platform” Kimi K2 · DAST · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“older configurations of Fortify WebInspect, HCL AppScan, or Qualys WAS ... tread carefully” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DAST · negative prompt · soft negative
“Can be noisy with false positives, limited modern API coverage, slower scan times” Kimi K2 · DAST · negative prompt · soft negative
“Qualys WAS (overhyped for app security, better for infrastructure)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · DAST · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 23 of the 23 answers that named Qualys WAS and are not a share of its labels.
127 of the 127 domain citations in answers naming Qualys WAS came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
What Qualys WAS's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: qualys.com/faqs-resources-web-application-scanning, qualys.com/apps/web-app-scanning, qualys.com/apps/web-app-scanning/story/web-application-security-analyst-peter, docs.qualys.com/en/was/latest/web_applications/web_apps.htm, docs.qualys.com/en/was/latest/web_applications/basic_info.htm. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Qualys WAS'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 Qualys WAS, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Qualys WAS by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: