IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Teramind · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Teramind

10Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

6 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Teramind was named 4 times in DLP, where Microsoft Purview DLP led with 39%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business52 of 68

under the label threshold

Mid-market16 of 84

under the label threshold

Enterprise27 of 51

under the label threshold

In dlp · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Teramind 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
Data loss prevention	Security operations	0%	16 of 84	0%	4	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview DLP at 39%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Teramind 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 Teramind 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	2	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Teramind or Code42 Incydr are best for insider risk” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative

“Teramind is another budget-conscious choice.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · DLP · budget prompt · alternative

“Best for Insider Threat + DLP Combined” Kimi K2 · DLP · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Teramind, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Teramind was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Purview DLP9 of 102Not in the top three

Forcepoint DLP7 of 101Not in the top three

Symantec Data Loss Prevention5 of 101Not in the top three

Netskope DLP4 of 100Not in the top three

Proofpoint Enterprise DLP4 of 100Not in the top three

Safetica3 of 100Not in the top three

CurrentWare2 of 101Not in the top three

Nightfall AI2 of 101Not in the top three

Strac2 of 101Not in the top three

Cyberhaven2 of 100Not 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 Teramind. 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 10 of the 10 answers that named Teramind and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

currentware.com10

gartner.com10

teramind.coYour site7

forcepoint.com5

learn.g2.com5

miniorange.com5

cyberhaven.com4

kickidler.com4

underdefense.com4

blog.scalefusion.com3

Fifty of the fifty-seven domain citations in answers naming Teramind came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

currentware.com/blog/best-data-loss-prevention-software10

gartner.com/reviews/market/data-loss-prevention10

learn.g2.com/best-data-loss-prevention-software5

miniorange.com/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-tools5

teramind.co/blog/best-data-loss-prevention-tools5

forcepoint.com/blog/insights/best-dlp-software4

kickidler.com/reviews/top-best-data-loss-prevention-software-dlp.html4

underdefense.com/blog/dlp-solutions4

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 Teramind'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 Teramind, 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 teramind.co 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.