RiskLens
91Judge labels
7First choices
29Negative labels
13 / 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.
Best standing
9% in Cyber risk quant for enterprise buyers
Rank 12 of 116 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 37% of its 27 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of RiskLens →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business14 of 145
4%39 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market12 of 116
2%27 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise2 of 74
9%25 labels
accepted challenger
In cyber risk quant · 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 RiskLens 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyber risk quantification | Security operations | 2% | 12 of 116 | 37% | 27 | criticized challenger |
Movement
This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for RiskLens 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 RiskLens 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 RiskLens 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 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
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
Direct21 labels2
Paraphrase9 labels1
Comparative22 labels3not counted in share
Budget-constrained20 labels3
Scale-constrained10 labels1
Negative9 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative91 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 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.
“One of the most established FAIR-native CRQ platforms... references enterprise-grade RiskLens as a benchmark tool” GPT-5.4 mini · Cyber risk quant · comparative prompt · first choice
“RiskLens - a pioneer in FAIR methodology, best for FAIR-based quantification.” Llama 4 Maverick · Cyber risk quant · budget prompt · first choice
“RiskLens is the gold standard for those who want rigorous, scientifically backed quantification... Caveat: Ensure you get the right pricing tier” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Cyber risk quant · direct prompt · alternative
“it may have a steeper learning curve and higher cost, which could be a consideration for some mid-market budgets” Mistral Small · Cyber risk quant · direct 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.
“transparent pricing compared to most enterprise CRQ tools (like RiskLens or SAFE Security) that typically start at $25K–$200K+ annually” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Cyber risk quant · budget prompt · soft negative
“RiskLens (traditional FAIR implementation), manual FAIR assessments ... Heavy reliance on manual FAIR; resource-intensive” Kimi K2 · Cyber risk quant · negative prompt · soft negative
“Enterprise tools like RiskLens, LogicGate, or Balbix are powerful but start at $10K+/year, so skip unless scaling up.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Cyber risk quant · budget prompt · soft negative
“without the enterprise pricing and dedicated FAIR analyst overhead you see with RiskLens/Safe Security, Kovrr, etc.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Cyber risk quant · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RiskLens, over the 91 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RiskLens was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RiskLens, over the 91 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RiskLens 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 RiskLens. 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 84 of the 91 answers that named RiskLens and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
riskpublishing.com47
trycomp.ai45
vcso.ai38
kovrr.com36
f6s.com34
bankinfosecurity.com30
securityboulevard.com30
g2.com29
bitsight.com28
worldmetrics.org26
343 of the 343 domain citations in answers naming RiskLens came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
risklens.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RiskLens takes 2% of first choices and CyberSaint CyberStrong takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
risklens.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RiskLens takes 2% of first choices and CyberSaint CyberStrong takes 25%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “cyber risk quantification tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “cyber risk quantification tools”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 90 a month (“risklens”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- · in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 875
- 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
2%
rank 12 of 116 in cyber risk quant
Segment leader
25%
CyberSaint CyberStrong
- First choices
- 7 across its categories
- Named in
- 91 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 84 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.
Names read as RiskLens
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as RiskLens; a claim can dispute any of them.
RiskLens / FAIR-based platforms 1Safe Security / RiskLens 1
Follow RiskLens
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 RiskLens'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 RiskLens, 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 RiskLens by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where RiskLens 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 RiskLens, 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.