Every category where a model named Scrut 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
Compliance automation	Security operations	0%	25 of 54	25%	8	under 10 labels · led by Drata at 37%
GRC platforms	Security operations	0%	25 of 77	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Vanta at 14%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Scrut 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 Scrut 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	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	1	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labels1

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labels1

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative6 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative24 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 4 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 need multiple frameworks: Scrut is the clear winner due to its bundled pricing model.” Kimi K2 · Compliance automation · budget prompt · alternative

“Similar to Hyperproof but often positioned as more cost-effective for mid-sized companies.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · GRC · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Scrut is another cost-effective option.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Compliance automation · budget prompt · alternative

“Drata/Scrut (automation-heavy)” Grok 4.1 Fast · GRC · scale 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.

“use sales-led, custom pricing models, which can be opaque and expensive” Mistral Small · Compliance automation · negative prompt · soft negative

“Sprinto and Scrut are too limited for these” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Compliance automation · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Scrut, over the 24 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Scrut was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Vanta23 of 247Not in the top three

Drata20 of 244Not in the top three

Sprinto18 of 242Not in the top three

Secureframe15 of 241Not in the top three

Hyperproof8 of 241Not in the top three

Scytale7 of 240Not in the top three

Archer6 of 240Not in the top three

Thoropass6 of 240Not in the top three

LogicGate5 of 241Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management5 of 240Not 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 Scrut. 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 22 of the 24 answers that named Scrut and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

vanta.com12

orbiqhq.com9

optro.ai8

cynomi.com6

drata.com6

netwrix.com6

expertinsights.com5

getsecureslate.com5

scrut.ioYour site5

usercentrics.com5

Sixty-two of the sixty-seven domain citations in answers naming Scrut came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

optro.ai/blog/compliance-automation-tools8

orbiqhq.com/compliance-automation/compliance-automation-software8

cynomi.com/learn/compliance-automation-tools6

netwrix.com/en/resources/blog/compliance-automation-platforms6

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-compliance-automation-tools5

usercentrics.com/knowledge-hub/compliance-automation-software4

auditxyz.com/compare/best-compliance-automation-platforms3

capterra.com/resources/best-compliance-management-software3

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 Scrut'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 Scrut, 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 scrut.io 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.