Small business▼−9Since September 2026: 44% → 35%, −9 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
35%from 44% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 2 pointsRank 1 of 69, unchanged
6 categories · RankedUpGuard
200Judge labels
60First choices
12Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
6Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
55% in TPRM for mid-market buyers
Rank 1 of 87 in the mid-market standingendorsed leader
10 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 4% of its 57 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of UpGuard →By buyer segmentStrongest at mid-market.
Small business1 of 71
39%61 labels
endorsed leader
Mid-market1 of 87
55%57 labels
endorsed leader
Enterprise4 of 72
9%34 labels
accepted challenger
In tprm · 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 UpGuard 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party risk management | Security operations | 55% | 1 of 87 | 4% | 57 | endorsed leader | ▼−2Since September 2026: 53% → 51%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Insider risk management | Security operations | 2% | 15 of 84 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management at 22% | |
| Threat intelligence platforms | Security operations | 2% | 14 of 119 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by MISP at 12% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Cyber risk quantification | Security operations | 0% | 36 of 116 | 25% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by CyberSaint CyberStrong at 25% | |
| AI governance platforms | Data platform | 0% | 49 of 135 | 0% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by Credo AI at 18% | |
| Vulnerability management platforms | Security operations | 0% | 63 of 77 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 30% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, UpGuard held within the floor in all six categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · TPRM · by segment
Mid-market▼−2Since September 2026: 53% → 51%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
51%from 53% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 1 of 82, unchanged
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 10% → 11%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
11%from 10% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 3 → 4 of 68
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insider risk | 0% | 3% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 3% now. | New this edition | Rank 15 of 84, unchanged |
| TPRM | 53% | 51% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 53% → 51%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 87, unchanged |
| Threat intel | 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 36 → 14 of 119 |
| Cyber risk quant | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 36 of 116, unchanged |
| AI governance | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 49 of 135, unchanged |
| Vuln management | 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 25 → 63 of 77 |
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
By model
How each model treated UpGuard across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated UpGuard across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Grok 4.20 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 7 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
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
Direct55 labels21
Paraphrase34 labels16
Comparative38 labels12not counted in share
Budget-constrained32 labels20
Scale-constrained20 labels3
Negative21 labels8not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative200 labels in all, every segment counted; 60 of the 80 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 want a single recommendation for most limited-budget SMEs, UpGuard is the one most 2024-2025 round-ups name as the affordable, SME-friendly TPRM leader.” Muse Glimmer 30B · TPRM · budget prompt · first choice
“If you need a truly free start‑point: UpGuard's free tier or CyberGRX's free vendor assessment are the quickest ways to get baseline visibility.” MiniMax M2.5 · TPRM · budget prompt · first choice
“For organizations focused on continuous cyber risk and attack‑surface visibility: UpGuard's continuous monitoring and scoring are a standout.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · TPRM · comparative prompt · first choice
“UpGuard tends to be the most recommended for mid-market companies looking for balanced capabilities without enterprise pricing complexity” MiniMax M2.5 · TPRM · direct prompt · first choice
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.
“reviews consistently flag limited customization and integration pain for UpGuard and Prevalent” Muse Glimmer 30B · TPRM · negative prompt · soft negative
“Excellent for ratings, but cautious about the *full* TPRM lifecycle.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · soft negative
“It is broader VRM/TPRM, not a pure CRQ-first tool.” Perplexity Sonar · Cyber risk quant · direct prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as UpGuard, over the 200 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and UpGuard was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as UpGuard, over the 200 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and UpGuard was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 UpGuard. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 192 of the 200 answers that named UpGuard and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
upguard.comYour site149
g2.com81
learn.g2.com81
vanta.com63
bitsight.com62
mitratech.com58
panorays.com48
enzuzo.com46
riskledger.com43
smartsuite.com43
525 of the 674 domain citations in answers naming UpGuard came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where UpGuard stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where UpGuard stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “third-party risk management platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “third-party risk management platforms”
9
- Searches for its name, Google
- 2,900 a month (“upguard”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 80 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 319,457 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 27,900 · 1,457 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 12,517
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
55%
rank 1 of 87 in TPRM
First choices
60
across its categories
- Named in
- 200 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 192 of the answers that named it
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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on upguard.com
18,239
subdomains included
Content
1,938
counted in the table below
Documentation
310
Product · Integration
37 · 1
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 980 | 98 | 2026-09-28 | GRC, SASE | |
| News or press | 428 | 8 | 2026-07-21 | ||
| Comparison | 170 | 3 | 2026-09-23 | SIEM | |
| Glossary or explainer | 123 | 3 | 2026-09-21 | GRC, SASE | |
| Template or tool | 64 | 1 | 2026-07-22 | ||
| Conference or event | 57 | 1 | 2026-09-21 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 55 | undated | |||
| Case study | 43 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 18 | 0 | 2021-04-06 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-28Compounding intelligence upguards grid blog
- 2026-09-28Attack surface management vendors compared blog
- 2026-09-28Find out if youre exposed on the dark web blog
- 2026-09-28Introducing upguards risk operations center blog
- 2026-09-28Cybersecurity horror stories 2026 blog
- 2026-09-25Everything everywhere systemic data exposure in supabase apps blog
Events in person
Last twelve months
- September 29, 2026Cybersecurity Summit | Croke Park 2026Croke Park, Dublin · exhibited
- September 9, 2026DSCI Cyber for Global Summit 2026Radisson Blu, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, India · sponsored
- July 24, 2026GCC Converge Summit & Awards 2026Bengaluru, India · sponsored
As the event pages on upguard.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page upguard.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as UpGuard
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as UpGuard; a claim can dispute any of them.
UpGuard Vendor Risk 15UpGuard Breach Risk 2Upguard 1
Follow UpGuard
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.
The company
UpGuard is its own company.ShowHide
The company
UpGuard is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The #1 Cyber Risk Posture Management Platform
- For
- security leaders
- Price stated
- For free. upguard.com
- Starting price
- 1750 upguard.com/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Free trial upguard.com
- Certifications
- ISO 27001ISO/IEC 27001SOC 2, Type IISOC 2ISO27001
- Customers named
- Chemist WarehouseSt John WAAnglo-EasternGlobal AirlineRiverside CountyGlobal Cloud Software CompanyMorningstarBrightcove
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, hosting
What UpGuard's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: upguard.com, upguard.com/pricing, upguard.com/security, upguard.com/platform, upguard.com/customers. A claimed page can correct any of 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 UpGuard'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 UpGuard, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for UpGuard by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where UpGuard is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name UpGuard, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where UpGuard is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where UpGuard is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideAI models recommend UpGuard first in Third-party risk management this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.