| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data loss prevention | Security operations | 0% | 89 of 89 | 53% | 36 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Data security posture management | Security operations | 0% | 90 of 105 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview at 18% |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DLP | 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 72 → 89 of 89 |
| DSPM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 90 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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Enterprise-grade solution, scales well for large organizations... Large enterprise → Symantec or Forcepoint” MiniMax M2.5 · DLP · comparative prompt · first choice
“Best for broad traditional enterprise DLP: Forcepoint or Symantec/Broadcom” Perplexity Sonar · DLP · comparative prompt · first choice
“A mature suite with endpoint, network, and discovery capabilities. It may suit organizations that already operate it” GPT-6 Luna · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative
“Symantec has the deepest content-detection engine in the industry... Symantec is the gold standard.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“Since Broadcom’s acquisition of Symantec, support and licensing for smaller or mid-market customers have shifted ... smaller organizations often face high renewal costs ... subpar customer support.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DLP · negative prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise tools (like Broadcom/Symantec or Forcepoint) are often too complex... Do not buy an enterprise heavyweight (like Digital Guardian or older Symantec versions)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DLP · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“the "best" Data Loss Prevention (DLP) platform is rarely the heavy, legacy enterprise suite (like Broadcom/Symantec or traditional Forcepoint)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · DLP · direct prompt · hard negative
“Complex configuration/operational overhead, frequent false positives... When to avoid: If your team lacks DLP specialists” Grok 4.20 · DLP · negative prompt · hard negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 129 of the 137 answers that named Symantec Data Loss Prevention and are not a share of its labels.
520 of the 520 domain citations in answers naming Symantec Data Loss Prevention came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
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.
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.
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 Symantec Data Loss Prevention'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 Symantec Data Loss Prevention, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Symantec Data Loss Prevention by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: