Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 46 → 65 of 69
3 categories · RankedRiskonnect
49Judge labels
2First choices
14Negative labels
13 / 14Models named it
3Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in TPRM for mid-market buyers
Rank 49 of 87 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 33% of its 12 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Riskonnect →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business66 of 71
0%4 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market49 of 87
0%12 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise22 of 72
0%14 labels
accepted challenger
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 Riskonnect 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% | 49 of 87 | 33% | 12 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| GRC platforms | Security operations | 0% | 31 of 75 | 14% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by Hyperproof at 19% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cyber risk quantification | Security operations | 0% | 101 of 116 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by CyberSaint CyberStrong at 25% |
Movement
Since September 2026, Riskonnect held within the floor in all three categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · TPRM · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 18 → 25 of 82
Enterprise▼−4Since September 2026: 4% → 0%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 6 → 20 of 68
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPRM | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 18 → 49 of 87 |
| GRC | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 20 → 31 of 75 |
| Cyber risk quant | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 101 of 116, 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 Riskonnect 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 Riskonnect 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 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
Direct7 labels2
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative19 labelsNone
Budget-constrained5 labelsNone
Scale-constrained5 labelsNone
Negative10 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative49 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.
“Best for Deep Risk Maturity: RiskOnnect ... offers deeper granularity” Qwen 3.7 Flash · TPRM · direct prompt · alternative
“Want TPRM unified with enterprise risk management? → Riskonnect.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · TPRM · comparative prompt · alternative
“robust for complex, multi‑domain programs” GLM 4.7 FlashX · TPRM · 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.
“What to Avoid with Limited Budgets - Enterprise platforms (Riskonnect, MetricStream)” Kimi K2 · TPRM · budget prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise incumbents with established programmes such as Riskonnect and MetricStream offer broad GRC depth with TPRM modules but require larger budgets and longer implementations.” Muse Glimmer 30B · TPRM · comparative prompt · soft negative
“may be effectively ruled out from platforms like IBM OpenPages, MetricStream, Riskonnect, and Archer” Perplexity Sonar · GRC · negative prompt · soft negative
“Quote-only models (e.g., ... Riskonnect) often lead to surprises or debates over value.” Grok 4.20 · TPRM · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Riskonnect, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Riskonnect was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Riskonnect, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Riskonnect 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 Riskonnect. 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 49 of the 49 answers that named Riskonnect and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
vanta.com26
learn.g2.com21
upguard.com21
riskonnect.comYour site20
surecloud.com20
bitsight.com14
expertinsights.com13
g2.com13
riskledger.com12
enzuzo.com11
151 of the 171 domain citations in answers naming Riskonnect came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
riskonnect.com ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Riskonnect takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.ShowHide
Search and answers
riskonnect.com ranks 2 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, Riskonnect takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “third-party risk management platform”
2
Position for “third-party risk management platforms”
3
- Searches for its name, Google
- 2,900 a month (“riskonnect”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 76 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 55,995 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 5,891 · 917 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 3,564
- Paid Google search
- 1 searches its ads show for, about 5 clicks and $0 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 49 of 87 in TPRM
Segment leader
55%
UpGuard
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 49 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 49 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 riskonnect.com
10,853
subdomains included
Content
1,318
counted in the table below
Documentation
5
Product · Integration
17 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News or press | 494 | 6 | 2026-08-27 | GRC | |
| Blog | 351 | 0 | 2026-03-18 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 140 | 0 | 2026-01-07 | GRC, TPRM | |
| Case study | 120 | 0 | 2026-06-11 | GRC | |
| Conference or event | 66 | 5 | 2026-11-23 | GRC | |
| Glossary or explainer | 41 | 0 | 2024-09-03 | TPRM | |
| Report or ebook | 39 | 0 | 2026-05-04 | GRC | |
| Comparison | 28 | 3 | 2026-09-18 | GRC | |
| Template or tool | 28 | 0 | 2026-04-23 | ||
| Podcast or video | 11 | 0 | 2026-01-20 |
Most recent
- 2026-11-23Ifaci 2026 conference or event
- 2026-11-19Future of risk tech the 2027 vision conference or event
- 2026-10-22A roadmap for retention keeping people and resources aligned and engaged conference or event
- 2026-10-22A roadmap for retention keeping people and resources aligned and engaged 2 conference or event
- 2026-09-28List conference or event
- 2026-09-18Riskonnect vs logicgate grc comparison comparison
Events in person
Upcoming
- November 19, 2026 to November 20, 2026RIMS ERM ConferenceColumbus, Ohio, Columbus, United States · attends
Last twelve months
- September 8, 2026 to September 9, 2026NSW Major Projects Conference 2026ICC, Sydney, Sydney, Australia
As the event pages on riskonnect.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page riskonnect.com 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 Riskonnect
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Riskonnect; a claim can dispute any of them.
RiskOnnect 1
Follow Riskonnect
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
Riskonnect is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Riskonnect is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The world’s largest risk management software provider
- For
- risk, claims, and safety professionals
- Free plan or trial
- Schedule Demo riskonnect.com
- Customers named
- IHG Hotels & ResortsThe Wendy’s CompanyBTTransport for LondonU.S. Army PEO MSReimagined ParkingRandstadHigher Education
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting
What Riskonnect's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: riskonnect.com, riskonnect.com/compliance/ccpa, riskonnect.com/solutions, riskonnect.com/portfolio_category/case-studies, riskonnect.com/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 Riskonnect'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 Riskonnect, 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 Riskonnect by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Riskonnect 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 Riskonnect, 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.