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
Third-party risk management	Security operations	0%	18 of 72	18%	11	accepted challenger
GRC platforms	Security operations	0%	20 of 77	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Vanta at 14%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Riskonnect yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Riskonnect across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	0	3
Llama 4 Maverick	1	2	0	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1

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

Direct12 labels2

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative21 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained6 labelsNone

Negative11 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative60 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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 Overall in 2026, integrated risk management | Mid-market to enterprise with complex risk needs” GLM 4.7 FlashX · GRC · direct prompt · alternative

“good fit for enterprises that need to embed TPRM within a broader risk management framework” Mistral Small · TPRM · comparative prompt · alternative

“Other options to consider are Riskonnect, RiskLedger, IBM OpenPages, and Vanta” Llama 4 Maverick · TPRM · budget prompt · alternative

“Riskonnect - Best for automated workflows with audit trails” MiniMax M2.5 · GRC · paraphrase 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.

“Large enterprise GRC suites such as Archer, OneTrust, ServiceNow, Riskonnect, and similar tools when you have a small team” Perplexity Sonar · TPRM · negative prompt · soft negative

“often require larger budgets and longer implementations” GLM 4.7 FlashX · TPRM · comparative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Riskonnect, over the 60 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

OneTrust Third-Party Risk Management31 of 603Not in the top three

MetricStream30 of 603Not in the top three

Archer29 of 600Not in the top three

ProcessUnity27 of 606Not in the top three

UpGuard26 of 609Not in the top three

Bitsight26 of 603Not in the top three

Vanta25 of 605Not in the top three

SecurityScorecard24 of 602Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management20 of 603Not in the top three

Prevalent20 of 601Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 59 of the 60 answers that named Riskonnect and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

riskonnect.comYour site33

gartner.com31

upguard.com29

vanta.com27

bitsight.com24

expertinsights.com21

riskledger.com17

learn.g2.com14

techbullion.com14

riskpublishing.com13

190 of the 223 domain citations in answers naming Riskonnect came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

upguard.com/blog/best-third-party-risk-management-software-solutions29

bitsight.com/guides/best-third-party-risk-management-platforms-for-enterprises23

gartner.com/reviews/market/third-party-risk-management-technology-solutions17

riskonnect.com/best-third-party-risk-management-software-platforms-in-202617

vanta.com/resources/best-tprm-software-for-enterprises17

riskonnect.com/best-grc-software-platforms-202616

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-governance-risk-compliance-grc-platforms15

techbullion.com/top-tprm-platforms14

Pages are listed as the models cited 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.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at riskonnect.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.