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 56 → 50 of 69
1 category · Named, not rankedRiskRecon
20Judge labels
1First choices
6Negative labels
11 / 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.
Standing
7 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. RiskRecon was named 7 times in TPRM, where UpGuard led with 55%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business53 of 71
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market30 of 87
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise33 of 72
0%4 labels
under the label threshold
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 RiskRecon 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% | 30 of 87 | 29% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 55% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, RiskRecon held within the floor in its one category: 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 68 → 29 of 82
Enterprise=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 → 31 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 68 → 30 of 87 |
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 RiskRecon 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 RiskRecon 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct4 labels1
Paraphrase3 labelsNone
Comparative5 labelsNone
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative4 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.
“If you want a low‑cost, per‑vendor subscription: RiskRecon and UpGuard tend to be the most transparent in pricing for small lists.” MiniMax M2.5 · TPRM · budget prompt · alternative
“Need continuous cyber monitoring of vendors: Bitsight, SecurityScorecard, Black Kite, RiskRecon.” GPT-5.4 mini · 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.
“Do not use these platforms as your *sole* source of truth.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · soft negative
“Cautious about using them as your *only* risk source.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RiskRecon, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RiskRecon was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RiskRecon, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RiskRecon 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 RiskRecon. 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 15 of the 20 answers that named RiskRecon and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
bitsight.com8
upguard.com8
vanta.com6
sprinto.com5
g2.com4
gartner.com4
mitratech.com4
securityboulevard.com4
worldmetrics.org4
bankinfosecurity.com3
Fifty of the fifty domain citations in answers naming RiskRecon came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
riskrecon.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RiskRecon takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.ShowHide
Search and answers
riskrecon.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RiskRecon takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “third-party risk management platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “third-party risk management platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 720 a month (“riskrecon”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 9 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 2,546 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,422 · 17 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,555
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 30 of 87 in TPRM
Segment leader
55%
UpGuard
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 20 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 15 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 riskrecon.com
1,018
subdomains included
Content
1,010
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 677 | undated | TPRM, GRC | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 112 | undated | TPRM, GRC | ||
| Conference or event | 78 | undated | TPRM | ||
| Report or ebook | 77 | undated | TPRM, GRC | ||
| News or press | 46 | undated | TPRM | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 13 | undated | TPRM | ||
| Podcast or video | 5 | undated | |||
| Case study | 2 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page riskrecon.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 RiskRecon
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as RiskRecon; a claim can dispute any of them.
RiskRecon (Mastercard) 1
Follow RiskRecon
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 RiskRecon'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 RiskRecon, 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 RiskRecon by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where RiskRecon 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 RiskRecon, 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.