Every category where a model named Trellix DLP 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%	42 of 84	33%	6	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 Trellix DLP 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 Trellix DLP 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	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 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.

“If you are already using Trellix for antivirus and firewall, their DLP is the logical extension” GLM 4.7 FlashX · DLP · comparative prompt · alternative

“Already invested in Trellix/XDR? → Trellix DLP” Kimi K2 · DLP · comparative 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.

“noted as enterprise/agent-based, with a complex UI and a traditional on-prem leaning, which can be a poor fit” Perplexity Sonar · DLP · negative prompt · soft negative

“Significant user frustration regarding browser stability and support quality since the merger into Trellix.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · DLP · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Trellix DLP, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Trellix DLP was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Forcepoint DLP18 of 201Not in the top three

Microsoft Purview DLP17 of 209Not in the top three

Symantec Data Loss Prevention17 of 202Not in the top three

Proofpoint Enterprise DLP11 of 200Not in the top three

Netskope DLP7 of 200Not in the top three

Nightfall AI7 of 200Not in the top three

Safetica6 of 200Not in the top three

Cyberhaven5 of 200Not in the top three

Digital Guardian5 of 200Not in the top three

Fortra DLP4 of 200Not 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 Trellix DLP. 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 19 of the 20 answers that named Trellix DLP and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

gartner.com14

strac.io13

forcepoint.com12

underdefense.com11

miniorange.com10

safetica.com8

currentware.com7

learn.g2.com6

nightfall.ai6

proofpoint.com6

Ninety-three of the ninety-three domain citations in answers naming Trellix DLP came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/data-loss-prevention14

forcepoint.com/blog/insights/best-dlp-software11

underdefense.com/blog/dlp-solutions11

miniorange.com/blog/top-data-loss-prevention-tools10

safetica.com/resources/blogs/top-data-loss-prevention-software-in-20248

currentware.com/blog/best-data-loss-prevention-software7

strac.io/blog/top-7-data-loss-prevention-solutions-comparison-and-dlp-evaluation-checklist7

learn.g2.com/best-data-loss-prevention-software6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Trellix DLP

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Trellix DLP; a claim can dispute any of them.

Trellix DLP (formerly McAfee) 1

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 Trellix DLP'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 Trellix DLP, 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 trellix.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.