| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SaaS security posture management | Security operations | 30% | 1 of 95 | 3% | 31 | endorsed leader |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Wing Security stands out as particularly well-suited for mid-market teams due to its balance of affordability, ease of deployment, and practical SaaS discovery capabilities.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · SSPM · direct prompt · first choice
“Vendors like Wing Security are highly popular for mid-sized organizations because they focus heavily on ease-of-use, low operational overhead” Gemini 3.5 Flash · SSPM · scale prompt · first choice
“the strongest single pick is Wing Security if you want the best balance of mid-market fit, value, and SaaS discovery” Perplexity Sonar · SSPM · direct prompt · first choice
“The most frequently cited value-led pick for mid-market teams starting SSPM pragmatically is Wing Security” Muse Glimmer 30B · SSPM · direct prompt · first choice
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.
“Less depth than Nudge or Obsidian” Kimi K2 · SSPM · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 86 of the 87 answers that named Wing Security and are not a share of its labels.
434 of the 434 domain citations in answers naming Wing Security came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-11 to 2026-10 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 94 | 7 | 2026-09-22 | SSPM, TPRM | |
| Case study | 3 | 0 | 2024-10-18 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 2 | 1 | 2026-08-19 | SSPM | |
| Conference or event | 1 | 0 | 2024-05-02 | ||
| Report or ebook | 1 | 0 | 2022-11-07 | ||
| Comparison | 1 | 0 | 2022-12-18 | CSPM, SSPM | |
| Template or tool | 1 | 0 | 2025-10-08 |
Every page wing.security 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 October 5, 2026.
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.
What Wing Security's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: wing.security, trust.wing.security. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Wing Security'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 Wing Security, 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 Wing Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
AI models recommend Wing Security first in SaaS security posture 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.
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.