IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Trustwave · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Trustwave

5Judge labels

0First choices

1Negative labels

4 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Trustwave was named 3 times in PTaaS, where Cobalt led with 44%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market55 of 76

under the label threshold

Enterprise31 of 73

under the label threshold

In ptaas · 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 Trustwave 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
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	55 of 76	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Trustwave 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 Trustwave across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1
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	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 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.

“Enterprises requiring deep manual expertise should look to firms like NetSPI, Trustwave, or Bishop Fox” Claude Haiku 4.5 · PTaaS · comparative prompt · alternative

“One of the largest names in the business. They have a massive footprint” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PTaaS · 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.

“Some companies that have been mentioned as having inconsistent experiences or being overly sales-focused include Trustwave and Black Hills Information Security.” Llama 4 Maverick · PTaaS · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Trustwave, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Trustwave was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Synack4 of 51Not in the top three

Cobalt3 of 52Not in the top three

Rapid73 of 51Not in the top three

Bishop Fox2 of 50Not in the top three

Bugcrowd2 of 50Not in the top three

Coalfire2 of 50Not in the top three

Mandiant2 of 50Not in the top three

NCC Group1 of 51Not in the top three

Astra Security1 of 50Not in the top three

Beagle Security1 of 50Not 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 Trustwave. 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 2 of the 5 answers that named Trustwave and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

beaglesecurity.com1

blazeinfosec.com1

breachlock.com1

brightdefense.com1

cybersecuritynews.com1

deepstrike.io1

getastra.com1

hackernoon.com1

infosecinstitute.com1

nflo.tech1

Ten of the ten domain citations in answers naming Trustwave came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

beaglesecurity.com/blog/article/top-penetration-testing-companies.html1

blazeinfosec.com/post/penetration-testing-companies1

breachlock.com/resources/blog/how-to-choose-the-best-penetration-testing-service-provider-1

brightdefense.com/resources/top-penetration-testing-companies1

cybersecuritynews.com/penetration-testing-companies1

deepstrike.io/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies1

deepstrike.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-companies1

getastra.com/blog/penetration-testing/companies1

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 Trustwave'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 Trustwave, 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 trustwave.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.