Every category where a model named Seraphic 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
Enterprise browsers	Security operations	0%	18 of 80	6%	17	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Seraphic 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 Seraphic 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	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	2	1	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	2	0	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

Direct8 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative13 labelsNone

Budget-constrained6 labelsNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative5 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative38 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

“look into *Secure Browser Extensions* (like Seraphic, Keep Aware, or Chrome Enterprise Core)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Enterprise browsers · negative prompt · first choice

“Harden-existing without migration: Seraphic ... hardens existing Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Firefox” Muse Glimmer 30B · Enterprise browsers · direct prompt · alternative

“some vendors like LayerX and Seraphic add enterprise controls without switching browsers” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Enterprise browsers · budget prompt · alternative

“If you can't force a browser change but need controls: LayerX or Seraphic extensions” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Enterprise browsers · 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.

“several top-tier extensions like LayerX and Seraphic have been acquired by major security vendors ... which has shifted them toward larger enterprise licensing” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Enterprise browsers · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Seraphic, over the 38 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Seraphic was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Island Enterprise Browser36 of 3814Not among the top eight

Google Password Manager34 of 3816Not among the top eight

LayerX22 of 380Not among the top eight

Microsoft Edge for Business21 of 388Not among the top eight

Talon13 of 382Not among the top eight

Prisma Access Browser9 of 381Not among the top eight

Brave8 of 380Not among the top eight

Surf8 of 380Not among the top eight

Check Point Harmony Browse7 of 380Not among the top eight

Chrome Enterprise Core6 of 383Not 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 Seraphic. 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 38 of the 38 answers that named Seraphic and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cybersecuritynews.com27

venn.com23

expertinsights.com21

gbhackers.com21

chromeenterprise.google19

us.fitgap.com17

island.io15

peerspot.com14

cyberpress.org13

gartner.com12

182 of the 182 domain citations in answers naming Seraphic came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cybersecuritynews.com/best-enterprise-browsers24

gbhackers.com/best-enterprise-browsers-compared21

expertinsights.com/web-security/the-top-enterprise-browsers17

us.fitgap.com/search/browsers/enterprise17

peerspot.com/categories/enterprise-browsers14

cyberpress.org/enterprise-browsers-by-business-size-212

venn.com/learn/browser-security/secure-enterprise-browser12

geekflare.com/guides/best-enterprise-browsers11

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

seraphicsecurity.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Seraphic takes 0% of first choices and Google Password Manager takes 26%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “enterprise browsers”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “secure enterprise browser”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 8,100 a month (“seraphic”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 4,693 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 6,034 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 603 · 48 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 1,368
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

11 ads · 8 image, 3 text · 0 shown in the last 30 days

First shown May 2025, as Seraphic Algorithms Ltd, verified.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 18 of 80 in enterprise browsers

Segment leader

26%

Google Password Manager

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 38 answers
Its own site cited: in 38 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 seraphicsecurity.com

10,284

subdomains included

Content

3,454

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

603 · 64

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	2,106	0	2026-04-29	SIEM, XDR
Report or ebook	315	0	2026-06-01	MDR, Endpoint protection
Case study	308	9	2026-09-23	MDR, ASPM
News or press	292	0	2025-12-01	SIEM, MDR
Comparison	155	0	2025-11-11	CSPM, EDR
Conference or event	112	undated		SIEM
Podcast or video	87	0	2026-02-27	XDR, Endpoint protection
Glossary or explainer	54	0	2025-08-28	DLP, SASE
Webinar or virtual event	19	0	2025-07-28	SASE
Template or tool	6	0	2026-03-05

Most recent

2026-09-23Solarig case study
2026-09-16Efg holding case study
2026-09-08Taxslayer case study
2026-09-08Seedco case study
2026-08-16Fortune 200 E-Commerce Leader Customer Story | CrowdStrike case study
2026-08-13Cullinan holdings case study

Events in person

Last twelve months

August 30, 2026 to September 1, 2026CrowdStrike Day Zero 2026 Threat Research SummitVirgin Hotel Las Vegas, Las Vegas · hosted

As the event pages on seraphicsecurity.com state them, read October 5, 2026.

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page seraphicsecurity.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. Of its titles that name a category, most name SIEM (74); 0 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 Seraphic

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

Seraphic (CrowdStrike) 1

Follow Seraphic

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

Seraphic is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Secure work and access in any browser
seraphicsecurity.com
For: the modern workforce
seraphicsecurity.com
Free plan or trial: Try CrowdStrike free for 15 days seraphicsecurity.com
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers

What Seraphic's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: seraphicsecurity.com, seraphicsecurity.com/product, seraphicsecurity.com/resources/case-studies, seraphicsecurity.com/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 Seraphic'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 Seraphic, 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 Seraphic by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Seraphic 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 Seraphic, 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.