Every category where a model named Sweet Security 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
Cloud-native application protection	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	18 of 70	0%	5	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 37%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Identity threat detection and response	Identity and access	0%	104 of 105	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Huntress Managed ITDR at 51%

Movement

Since September 2026, Sweet Security held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.

Best category · CNAPP · by segment

Small business=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 7 → 8 of 58

Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 0% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 11 → 16 of 68

Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 0% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 16 → 19 of 35

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
CNAPP	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 11 → 18 of 70
ITDR	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 104 of 105, 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 Sweet Security across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	0	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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 label1

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative9 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative22 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 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.

“Sweet Security is worth considering if runtime detection and response are your top priorities.” Mistral Small · CNAPP · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“The Kubernetes/Runtime Specialists (e.g., Sysdig, Sweet Security):” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CNAPP · scale prompt · alternative

“runtime-first orgs often need Sysdig / Sweet Security type depth” Muse Glimmer 30B · CNAPP · 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.

“Best suited for cloud-native environments rather than hybrid or on-prem infrastructure, with limited reporting flexibility and alert tuning options.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · ITDR · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Sweet Security, over the 22 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sweet Security was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Orca Security20 of 224Not among the top eight

Microsoft Defender for Cloud17 of 227Not among the top eight

Wiz15 of 223Not among the top eight

Prisma Cloud13 of 220Not among the top eight

Sysdig Secure9 of 220Not among the top eight

CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security8 of 220Not among the top eight

FortiCNAPP7 of 222Not among the top eight

Prowler7 of 220Not among the top eight

Aikido Security4 of 221Not among the top eight

Rapid7 InsightCloudSec4 of 220Not 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 Sweet Security. 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 22 of the 22 answers that named Sweet Security and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org16

g2.com12

it-ai-index.com10

expertinsights.com9

sentinelone.com8

cybersecuritynews.com6

fidelissecurity.com6

gbhackers.com6

softwaretestinghelp.com6

uptycs.com6

Eighty-five of the eighty-five domain citations in answers naming Sweet Security came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/cnapp-platforms-by-business-size-216

it-ai-index.com/cloud/cloud-native-application-protection/smb9

g2.com/categories/cloud-native-application-protection-platform-cnapp/small-business8

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-cloud-native-application-protection-platfo6

fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/cloud-security/top-cnapp-vendors6

softwaretestinghelp.com/best-cnapp-vendors6

cybersecurityessential.com/cloud-security/cnapp/wiz-orca-prisma-cloud-cnapp-compared5

aikido.dev/blog/top-cloud-native-application-protection-platforms-cnapp4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

sweet.security is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Sweet Security takes 0% of first choices and Wiz takes 37%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “cnapp”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “cnapps”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 720 a month (“sweet security”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 30 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 817 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 2,438 · 11 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 489
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

11 ads · 9 text, 2 image · 1 shown in the last 30 days

First shown December 2024, as SWEET SECURITY LTD, verified. Ads started 2025-10 to 2026-09: 9 in the year, 2 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 18 of 70 in CNAPP

Segment leader

37%

Wiz

First choices: 1 across its categories
Named in: 22 answers
Its own site cited: in 22 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

Addresses on sweet.security

237

subdomains included

Content

128

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

11 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	111	5	2026-09-03	CNAPP, Secrets
News or press	10	undated		CNAPP
Glossary or explainer	4	2	2026-08-21	CNAPP
Comparison	2	1	2026-09-24
Report or ebook	1	undated

Most recent

2026-09-24Ai vs ai dror kashti on the future of cloud security comparison
2026-09-03How sweet enables ai security at scale blog
2026-08-31How sweet secures mcp servers live discovery cloud context and runtime enforcement blog
2026-08-25Do something why observability isnt security blog
2026-08-21What is ai agent governance glossary or explainer
2026-08-21What is ai agent security glossary or explainer

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page sweet.security 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. Read September 29, 2026.

Follow Sweet Security

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

Sweet Security is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Autonomous Protection for the AI Enterprise
sweet.security
For: Security teams
sweet.security
Certifications: HIPAACIS Kubernetes BenchmarkGDPRNISTSOC2AWS MITRE ATTACKSAWS PCI
Customers named: Cast & CrewShipStationFireblocksKalturaEngageliFireboltLemonadeHippo
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting

What Sweet Security's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: sweet.security, sweet.security/product/runtime-cspm, sweet.security/resources/case-studies, sweet.security/integrations. 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 Sweet Security'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 Sweet Security, 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 Sweet Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Sweet Security 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 Sweet Security, 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.