Every category where a model named Securonix 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
SIEM platforms	Security operations	0%	48 of 49	57%	14	criticized challenger
Extended detection and response	Security operations	0%	46 of 61	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender XDR at 63%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Securonix 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 Securonix across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative12 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative18 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative39 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“Multiple users have expressed dissatisfaction with Securonix, citing issues such as poor support, deactivation of policies without warning, and overall poor performance.” Llama 4 Maverick · SIEM · negative prompt · hard negative

“multiple user reports describe it as difficult to use, poorly organized, and weak in parsing/normalization, with one thread calling it "absolute trash"” Perplexity Sonar · SIEM · negative prompt · hard negative

“describe this as "a hot mess"... Horrendous support with tickets going unactioned for weeks or months” Kimi K2 · SIEM · negative prompt · hard negative

“Strongly Avoid or High Caution... Securonix: Overwhelmingly negative user feedback.” Grok 4.1 Fast · SIEM · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Securonix, over the 39 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Securonix was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Sentinel32 of 399Not in the top three

IBM QRadar31 of 391Not in the top three

Splunk Enterprise Security24 of 396Not in the top three

Exabeam24 of 390Not in the top three

Elastic Security22 of 391Not in the top three

LogRhythm21 of 390Not in the top three

Google Security Operations16 of 390Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSIAM15 of 392Not in the top three

Sumo Logic11 of 390Not in the top three

Rapid7 InsightIDR9 of 391Not 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 Securonix. 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 34 of the 39 answers that named Securonix and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

underdefense.com23

gartner.com18

paloaltonetworks.com17

expertinsights.com14

reddit.com14

solutionsreview.com14

exabeam.com12

siemtune.com10

decryptiondigest.com9

puppygraph.com9

140 of the 140 domain citations in answers naming Securonix came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

underdefense.com/blog/siem-solutions-comparison20

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/siem-tools-comparison15

expertinsights.com/security-operations/the-top-siem-solutions14

gartner.com/reviews/market/security-information-event-management14

reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1g47k4f/siem_hunt_deal_killers_and_reasons_to_avoid11

solutionsreview.com/security-information-event-management/whats-changed-2024-gartner-magic11

siemtune.com/best-siem-tools-202510

exabeam.com/explainers/siem-tools/siem-buyers-guide9

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 Securonix'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 Securonix, 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 securonix.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.