Every category where a model named Sophos XGS 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
Next-generation firewalls	Network and edge	0%	69 of 100	40%	5	under 10 labels · led by Fortinet FortiGate at 61%

Movement

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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labels1

Comparative8 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative6 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 3 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.

“Best for SMBs and mid‑market teams without dedicated security staff; strong MSP‑friendly and endpoint‑sync features.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Firewalls · direct prompt · alternative

“Easy to manage, good for organizations without dedicated firewall staff.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Firewalls · direct 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.

“serious enterprise architects often avoid it because the integration ... is sometimes seen as disjointed” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Firewalls · negative prompt · soft negative

“Good for MSPs, but more complex management for a mid\u2011sized in\u2011house IT team.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Firewalls · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Sophos XGS, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sophos XGS was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Fortinet FortiGate20 of 2511Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks11 of 254Not in the top three

Cisco Secure Firewall11 of 250Not in the top three

WatchGuard Firebox8 of 252Not in the top three

Cisco Meraki MX6 of 250Not in the top three

Check Point5 of 250Not in the top three

Palo Alto Networks PA-Series4 of 253Not in the top three

Barracuda CloudGen4 of 250Not in the top three

Check Point Quantum4 of 250Not in the top three

Forcepoint4 of 250Not 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 Sophos XGS. 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 21 of the 25 answers that named Sophos XGS and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org13

comparitech.com12

cybersecuritynews.com10

decryptiondigest.com9

esecurityplanet.com9

checkpoint.com8

fortinet.com8

enterprisenetworkingplanet.com7

reddit.com7

secithub.com7

Ninety of the ninety domain citations in answers naming Sophos XGS came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/best-next-generation-firewall-ngfw-solutions-for-every-business-size13

comparitech.com/net-admin/next-gen-firewalls10

cybersecuritynews.com/best-next-generation-firewall10

esecurityplanet.com/products/top-ngfw9

enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/guides/best-firewalls-for-small-medium-business7

secithub.com/smb-firewall-ranking-guide-20257

softwarereviews.com/awards/data-quadrant-awards-2024-next-generation-firewall7

checkpoint.com/comparison/top-4-ngfw-compared6

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 Sophos XGS'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 Sophos XGS, 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 sophos.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.