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
Cloud-native application protection	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	13 of 57	0%	8	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 46%
Cloud security posture management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	41 of 53	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 43%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Sweet Security 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 Sweet Security 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	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	1
Mistral Small	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	2	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	2	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	1	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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labels1

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative33 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.

“Starts ~$300/month (transparent, includes 10M requests). Runtime-first CNAPP, good for mid-market” Grok 4.1 Fast · CNAPP · budget prompt · alternative

“If runtime security and container protection are priorities, these platforms add valuable depth.” Mistral Small · CNAPP · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Positioned as runtime-first with lean economics when free tools are overwhelmed by findings” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CNAPP · budget prompt · alternative

“Best for: Runtime-first protection at reasonable cost” MiniMax M2.5 · CNAPP · budget 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 Sweet Security, over the 33 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Defender for Cloud33 of 3321Not in the top three

Wiz27 of 335Not in the top three

Orca Security21 of 330Not in the top three

Prisma Cloud17 of 330Not in the top three

Sysdig14 of 330Not in the top three

Falco13 of 331Not in the top three

Aikido Security12 of 334Not in the top three

Prowler12 of 332Not in the top three

Orca11 of 330Not in the top three

Rapid7 InsightCloudSec7 of 330Not 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 Sweet Security. 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 33 of the 33 answers that named Sweet Security and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberpress.org31

expertinsights.com26

cybersecuritynews.com19

gbhackers.com18

aikido.dev15

sourceforge.net12

cipherssecurity.com11

startupstash.com9

pt.aikido.dev8

g2.com7

156 of the 156 domain citations in answers naming Sweet Security came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberpress.org/cnapp-platforms-by-business-size-231

expertinsights.com/application-security/the-top-cloud-native-application-protection-platfo20

cybersecuritynews.com/best-cnapp-platforms18

gbhackers.com/best-cnapp-compared18

aikido.dev/blog/top-cloud-native-application-protection-platforms-cnapp15

sourceforge.net/software/cloud-native-application-protection-platforms-cnapp/for-small-bus11

startupstash.com/top-cloud-native-application-protection-platforms9

cipherssecurity.com/cnapp-buyers-guide-20268

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 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.

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 sweet.security 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.