Small business▲+4Since September 2026: 0% → 4%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 15 → 3 of 69
4 categories · RankedSecurityScorecard
119Judge labels
4First choices
36Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
4Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
3% in TPRM for small business buyers
Rank 18 of 87 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 26% of its 34 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of SecurityScorecard →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business3 of 71
3%29 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market18 of 87
0%34 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise9 of 72
2%31 labels
criticized 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 SecurityScorecard 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% | 18 of 87 | 26% | 34 | criticized challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Attack surface management | Security operations | 0% | 100 of 100 | 67% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 49% | =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% | 68 of 116 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by CyberSaint CyberStrong at 25% | |
| Digital risk protection | Security operations | 0% | 57 of 86 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard BreachSight at 22% |
Movement
Since September 2026, SecurityScorecard held within the floor in all four categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · TPRM · by segment
Mid-market▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 16 of 82
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 8 → 7 of 68
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPRM | 2% | 0% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 18 of 87 |
| ASM | 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 53 → 100 of 100 |
| Cyber risk quant | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 68 of 116, unchanged |
| DRP | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 57 of 86, 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 SecurityScorecard 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 SecurityScorecard 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 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
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
Direct19 labels2
Paraphrase13 labels1
Comparative35 labels5not counted in share
Budget-constrained11 labels1
Scale-constrained16 labelsNone
Negative25 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative119 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 9 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 strongest TPRM platforms for 2026 are Mitratech Prevalent, UpGuard, and SecurityScorecard” Claude Haiku 4.5 · TPRM · comparative prompt · first choice
“Choose BitSight / SecurityScorecard / UpGuard if what you really need is more third-party/vendor cyber risk scoring than true DRP.” GPT-5.4 mini · DRP · direct prompt · alternative
“Strong for continuous cyber risk monitoring at scale; A-F ratings easy for execs. Good if cybersecurity is your priority.” Grok 4.20 · TPRM · direct prompt · alternative
“Top contenders in this space include SecurityScorecard, OneTrust, CyberGRX, Prevalent, and RiskRecon” MiniMax M2.5 · TPRM · 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.
“criticized for having incredibly high false-positive rates and inaccurate asset attribution... do not use them as your primary operational EASM tool” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Extortion-like business model: Users claim you must pay for premium membership to contest findings ... "terrible software"” MiniMax M2.5 · ASM · negative prompt · hard negative
“Quote-only pricing (SecurityScorecard, BitSight): Often expensive and unpredictable” Kimi K2 · TPRM · budget prompt · hard negative
“assess carefully whether their governance, non-cyber risk, and lifecycle capabilities meet your needs without a separate system” GPT-6 Luna · TPRM · comparative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SecurityScorecard, over the 119 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SecurityScorecard was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as SecurityScorecard, over the 119 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SecurityScorecard 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 SecurityScorecard. 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 111 of the 119 answers that named SecurityScorecard and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
upguard.com77
bitsight.com54
vanta.com47
mitratech.com40
riskledger.com36
g2.com34
learn.g2.com32
atlassystems.com30
gartner.com29
coruzant.com28
407 of the 407 domain citations in answers naming SecurityScorecard came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
securityscorecard.com ranks 7 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, SecurityScorecard takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.ShowHide
Search and answers
securityscorecard.com ranks 7 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, SecurityScorecard takes 0% of first choices and UpGuard takes 55%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “third-party risk management platform”
7
Position for “third-party risk management platforms”
7
- Searches for its name, Google
- 2,400 a month (“securityscorecard”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 118 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 151,385 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 10,334 · 867 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 8,904
- 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 18 of 87 in TPRM
Segment leader
55%
UpGuard
- First choices
- 4 across its categories
- Named in
- 119 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 111 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 securityscorecard.com
1,152
subdomains included
Content
946
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
38 · 6
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 525 | 34 | 2026-09-25 | TPRM, GRC | |
| Glossary or explainer | 111 | 15 | 2026-09-22 | TPRM, SIEM | |
| News or press | 107 | 3 | 2026-09-08 | TPRM, ITSM | |
| Report or ebook | 105 | 5 | 2026-09-08 | TPRM | |
| Case study | 31 | 1 | 2026-07-14 | ||
| Comparison | 29 | 6 | 2026-09-08 | SIEM, SOAR | |
| Podcast or video | 24 | 14 | 2026-09-22 | TPRM | |
| Template or tool | 9 | 0 | 2026-03-12 | ||
| Conference or event | 4 | 0 | 2026-03-12 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 1 | 0 | 2026-03-09 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-25How the eu ai act changes vendor risk management blog
- 2026-09-22Titan watch downstream breach analyst agent podcast or video
- 2026-09-22Why traditional vendor questionnaires are outdated blog
- 2026-09-22What is threat informed tprm and why compliance driven programs leave you exposed glossary or explainer
- 2026-09-22What is nth party risk glossary or explainer
- 2026-09-22Ai agents in tprm what they actually do and what they dont blog
Events in person
Last twelve months
- March 25, 2026Investing in Cybersecurity: What Boards Expect and Executives DeliverW Hotel (conference room) · hosted
- March 24, 2026The Outside-In Advantage: Modernizing TPRM with AI and Threat IntelligenceNorth Expo Briefing Center · spoke
As the event pages on securityscorecard.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page securityscorecard.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.
Follow SecurityScorecard
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
SecurityScorecard is its own company.ShowHide
The company
SecurityScorecard is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Supply Chain & Third-Party Risk Platform
- For
- security leaders
- Price stated
- Get started for free securityscorecard.com
- Free plan or trial
- 14-day free trial securityscorecard.com
- Integrations claimed
- 73 securityscorecard.com
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type IIGDPR Compliant
- Customers named
- ADTAflacCleveland ClinicHersheyNew York LifeAvangridCEDIAMRS Brazil
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, hosting
What SecurityScorecard's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: securityscorecard.com, securityscorecard.com/pricing, trust.securityscorecard.com, securityscorecard.com/platform, securityscorecard.com/resources/case-studies. 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 SecurityScorecard'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 SecurityScorecard, 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 SecurityScorecard by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where SecurityScorecard 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 SecurityScorecard, 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.