Every category where a model named SAFE Security 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	8%	3 of 116	32%	40	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SAFE Security 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 SAFE Security 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	1	1	1	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	2	0	0	1	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	1	1	2	5
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	1	0	3
Grok 4.20	2	0	1	1	4
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	1	2	6
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1	0	3	5
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	2	0	0	0	2
GPT-6 Luna	0	1	0	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	1	0	3	5

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

Direct25 labels10

Paraphrase16 labels9

Comparative30 labels19not counted in share

Budget-constrained20 labels8

Scale-constrained14 labels3

Negative11 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative116 labels in all, every segment counted; 30 of the 51 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.

“The only enterprise platform purpose-built on the FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information Risk) framework... Ranked leader in the 2025 Forrester CRQ Wave” Kimi K2 · Cyber risk quant · comparative prompt · first choice

“Safe Security leads the 2025 Forrester CRQ Wave after acquiring RiskLens, consolidating FAIR-native quantification with real-world data integration.” Mistral Small · Cyber risk quant · comparative prompt · first choice

“Cloud-first enterprises that want CRQ wired into daily security operations lean Safe Security; its integration depth is the widest in the category.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Cyber risk quant · comparative prompt · first choice

“If your goal is automated, day-to-day risk management tied directly to live security tools, go with SAFE Security.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Cyber risk quant · comparative prompt · first choice

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.

“such as Kovrr, Safe Security, and Axio) are generally out of reach, as their annual licensing fees frequently scale into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Cyber risk quant · budget prompt · soft negative

“Safe Security (post-RiskLens acquisition) | ⚠️ Moderate | Partially black-box methodology; auditability of underlying assumptions varies” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Cyber risk quant · negative prompt · soft negative

“Caveat: It can be expensive and may require more administrative overhead to configure properly compared to Kovrr or Axio.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Cyber risk quant · direct 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 SAFE Security, over the 116 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAFE Security was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Axio79 of 1163Compare →

Kovrr71 of 1166Compare →

RiskLens57 of 1161Compare →

Balbix37 of 1160Not among the top eight

CyberSaint CyberStrong34 of 1167Compare →

Bitsight17 of 1160Not among the top eight

KPMG15 of 1160Not among the top eight

FairCRQ13 of 11610Not among the top eight

UpGuard10 of 1161Not among the top eight

SecurityScorecard10 of 1160Not among the top eight

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 SAFE Security. 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 115 of the 116 answers that named SAFE Security and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

riskpublishing.com70

kovrr.com61

vcso.ai56

cybersaint.io48

trycomp.ai46

bankinfosecurity.com43

bitsight.com41

securityboulevard.com41

g2.com37

worldmetrics.org37

480 of the 480 domain citations in answers naming SAFE Security came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

riskpublishing.com/best-cyber-risk-quantification-platforms-compar65

vcso.ai/learn/cyber-risk-quantification-tools-comparison55

trycomp.ai/hub/top-risk-management-software46

bankinfosecurity.com/safe-axio-kpmg-dominate-cyber-risk-quantification-rankings-a-2883743

kovrr.com/blog-post/the-best-cyber-risk-quantification-tools-in-2026-a-buyers-guide40

vcisolite.com/blog/crq-tools-and-platforms-202633

f6s.com/software/category/cyber-risk-quantification32

worldmetrics.org/best/cyber-risk-quantification-software31

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

safe.security ranks 8 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, SAFE Security takes 8% of first choices and CyberSaint CyberStrong takes 25%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “cyber risk quantification tool”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “cyber risk quantification tools”

Searches for its name, Google: 2,400 a month (“safe security”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 5,496 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 1,015,372 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 10,202 · 438 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 2,563
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

43 ads · 35 text, 7 image, 1 video · 12 shown in the last 30 days

First shown January 2025, as SAFE SECURITIES INC., verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 26 in the year, 17 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 3 of 116 in cyber risk quant

Segment leader

25%

CyberSaint CyberStrong

First choices: 30 across its categories
Named in: 116 answers
Its own site cited: in 115 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.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on safe.security

1,080

subdomains included

Content

1,004

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

9 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	513	7	2026-10-02	TPRM, Cyber risk quant
Glossary or explainer	246	2	2026-08-26	TPRM, Cyber risk quant
Report or ebook	60	2	2026-09-23	TPRM, Cyber risk quant
News or press	55	0	2026-05-28	Cyber risk quant, TPRM
Podcast or video	33	0	2026-03-11	TPRM, GRC
Webinar or virtual event	27	0	2026-05-20	TPRM
Comparison	26	1	2026-09-11	TPRM, EDR
Case study	19	1	2026-07-08	TPRM
Template or tool	13	9	2026-09-25	TPRM
Conference or event	12	1	2026-07-21	TPRM, Cyber risk quant

Most recent

2026-10-02Manufacturer vendor risk assessment automation blog
2026-10-02Cve 2026 34486 apache tomcat encryptinterceptor bypass to remote code execution blog
2026-10-01This Week’s CVE Priorities: Citrix, Check Point, F5, Cisco, and PeopleSoft Under Active Exploitation blog
2026-09-30No nonsense guide to tprm in 2026 book blog
2026-09-30CVE-2026-82329 | JFrog Artifactory Blank-Join-Key Authentication Bypass (Unauthenticated Admin Takeover) blog
2026-09-30Cve 2026 49049 joomshaper helix3 joomla unauthenticated arbitrary json file write blog

Events in person

Upcoming

November 10, 2026FAIR Forward: Introducing FAIR Institute 2.0place not stated · hosts

Last twelve months

October 5, 2026Course: Cyber Risk Analysisplace not stated · hosted
October 5, 2026Workshop: Rethinking TPRM for Risk Management Program Leadersplace not stated · hosted
October 5, 2026FAIR Practitioner Masterclass: Lessons from Successful Programsplace not stated · hosted
October 5, 2026Workshop: AI for Risk Practitioners: Use It. Measure it. Manage it.place not stated · hosted
October 5, 2026Advanced FAIR Workshop: Risk Appetite and Decison Analyticsplace not stated · hosted
October 4, 2026 to October 5, 2026Course Bundle: FAIR™ Foundations and Cyber Risk Analysis Coursesplace not stated · hosted
October 4, 2026Course: FAIR™ Foundationsplace not stated · hosted
October 4, 2026Cyber Risk Communications & Reporting (NEW)place not stated · hosted
September 23, 2026An Invitation-Only Executive ReceptionSunborn London Yacht Hotel Sky Lounge & Deck, Royal Victoria Dock, London, UK · hosted
September 23, 2026What You Don’t Know About Your Third PartiesTheater 1, London, UK · spoke
September 23, 2026Mythos changed the vulnerability & exploit game. Are we still playing by old rules?Maritime Suite 19, London, UK · hosted
September 22, 2026 to September 24, 2026Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2026ExCeL London, London, UK · exhibited
September 22, 2026Life After Mythos: How Hundreds of AI Agents Manage Millions of Vulnerabilities DailyMaritime Suite 25, London, UK · spoke

As the event pages on safe.security state them, read October 5, 2026.

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page safe.security 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. Of its titles that name a category, most name TPRM (110); 25 name the category the models place it in. 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 October 5, 2026.

Names read as SAFE Security

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as SAFE Security; a claim can dispute any of them.

Safe Security 24Safe Security (formerly RiskLens) 4SAFE Security (SAFE One) 2SAFE Security (RiskLens) 1SAFE Security (The SAFE One Platform) 1Safe Security (incorporating RiskLens) 1Safe Security (now includes RiskLens) 1Safe Security (which acquired RiskLens) 1Safe Security / RiskLens 1

Follow SAFE Security

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

SAFE Security is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Autonomous Cyber Risk Management
safe.security
For: security teams
safe.security
Integrations claimed: 100 safe.security/customers
Certifications: TX-RAMPSOC 2 Type 2ISO 27001:2013SOC 3ISO 9001:2015
Customers named: Victoria’s Secret & Co.T-MobileInstacartSan Francisco Health PlanCarvanaBooz Allen HamiltonAboitiz PowerOB Hospitalist Group
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, hosting

What SAFE Security's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: safe.security, safe.security/security, safe.security/solutions/cro, safe.security/customers, safe.security/partners. 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 SAFE Security'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 SAFE Security, 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 SAFE Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where SAFE Security 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 SAFE Security, 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.

Badges

Wins only: a badge exists where SAFE Security is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.

ShowHide

SAFE Security is among the products AI models recommend first in Cyber risk quantification this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.

Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges

Show the code

<a href="https://it-ai-index.com/security/cyber-risk-quantification/"><img src="https://it-ai-index.com/badges/2026-10/safe-security--cyber-risk-quantification-wide.svg" alt="Among AI models' top three in Cyber risk quantification, October 2026 Edition, IT AI Recommendation Index" width="320" height="104"></a>

Copy the code as it is. The link is part of the badge: it points at the Cyber risk quantification standing, where the claim can be checked.

Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides

Show the code

<a href="https://it-ai-index.com/security/cyber-risk-quantification/"><img src="https://it-ai-index.com/badges/2026-10/safe-security--cyber-risk-quantification-square.svg" alt="Among AI models' top three in Cyber risk quantification, October 2026 Edition, IT AI Recommendation Index" width="240" height="240"></a>

Copy the code as it is. The link is part of the badge: it points at the Cyber risk quantification standing, where the claim can be checked.

Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer

Show the code

<a href="https://it-ai-index.com/security/cyber-risk-quantification/"><img src="https://it-ai-index.com/badges/2026-10/safe-security--cyber-risk-quantification-compact.svg" alt="Among AI models' top three in Cyber risk quantification, October 2026 Edition, IT AI Recommendation Index" width="200" height="56"></a>

Copy the code as it is. The link is part of the badge: it points at the Cyber risk quantification standing, where the claim can be checked.

Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.