Every category where a model named Snyk Container 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
Container and Kubernetes security	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	14 of 78	0%	13	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

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 labels3

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative15 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained6 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative6 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative35 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 5 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 your company is developer-led or prioritizes shift-left security: Snyk Container is the best fit.” Kimi K2 · Container security · direct prompt · alternative

“Supply chain | Snyk Container or Grype with reachability analysis” Kimi K2 · Container security · negative prompt · alternative

“Snyk is the go‑to for developer‑centric shift‑left scanning.” MiniMax M2.5 · Container security · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best developer-first scanning: Snyk Container” Perplexity Sonar · Container security · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Snyk Container, over the 35 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Snyk Container was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Aqua Security30 of 3512Not in the top three

Sysdig Secure26 of 354Not in the top three

Prisma Cloud26 of 353Not in the top three

Wiz26 of 353Not in the top three

Trivy22 of 358Not in the top three

Falco21 of 354Not in the top three

Kubescape15 of 352Not in the top three

SUSE NeuVector14 of 351Not in the top three

Calico8 of 351Not in the top three

Aikido Security6 of 351Not 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 Snyk Container. 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 30 of the 35 answers that named Snyk Container and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gbhackers.com27

cyberpress.org26

cybersecuritynews.com20

decryptiondigest.com18

expertinsights.com18

ox.security17

checkmarx.com11

sentinelone.com9

softwareadvice.com9

worldmetrics.org8

163 of the 163 domain citations in answers naming Snyk Container came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gbhackers.com/best-container-security-compared27

cyberpress.org/container-security-by-business-size-226

decryptiondigest.com/blog/guide-finding-best-container-security-tools18

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-container-security-tools18

cybersecuritynews.com/best-container-security-tools14

ox.security/blog/container-security-solutions-in-202613

checkmarx.com/learn/container-security/10-container-security-tools-to-know-in-202610

cybersecuritynews.com/best-container-security-tools/amp10

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 Snyk Container'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 Snyk Container, 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 snyk.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.