Every category where a model named Wireshark 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
Network monitoring and management	Network and edge	0%	24 of 78	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by Auvik at 26%
Network detection and response	Security operations	0%	101 of 102	67%	3	under 10 labels · led by ManageEngine NetFlow Analyzer at 21%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Wireshark yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Wireshark across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
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	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase12 labels1

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative24 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“consider the free version of Paessler PRTG or Wireshark for specific troubleshooting needs” Mistral Small · Network monitoring · budget prompt · alternative

“On‑demand packet‑level troubleshooting & forensics | Wireshark” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Network monitoring · 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.

“Tools designed to capture raw network packets (like generic Wireshark configurations used for monitoring) can be dangerous if deployed carelessly.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Network monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

“it is not usually the best standalone choice for ongoing company-wide traffic analysis” Perplexity Sonar · NDR · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Limitation: Not a 24/7 monitoring solution — more of a diagnostic tool” Kimi K2 · NDR · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Wireshark, over the 24 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Wireshark was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Paessler PRTG Network Monitor15 of 246Not among the top eight

Zabbix8 of 241Not among the top eight

Nagios7 of 241Not among the top eight

ManageEngine NetFlow Analyzer6 of 244Not among the top eight

ntopng5 of 241Not among the top eight

Datadog Network Monitoring4 of 240Not among the top eight

SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer4 of 240Not among the top eight

SolarWinds Network Performance Monitor3 of 242Not among the top eight

Auvik3 of 240Not among the top eight

ManageEngine OpManager3 of 240Not among the top eight

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 Wireshark. 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 17 of the 24 answers that named Wireshark and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

motadata.com9

comparitech.com8

dnsstuff.com8

manageengine.com8

kentik.com5

netdata.cloud5

solarwinds.com5

sourceforge.net5

techradar.com5

aimultiple.com4

Sixty-two of the sixty-two domain citations in answers naming Wireshark came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

motadata.com/blog/network-traffic-analysis-tools9

manageengine.com/products/netflow/best-network-traffic-analysis-tools.html6

comparitech.com/net-admin/network-monitoring-tools5

comparitech.com/net-admin/best-netflow-analyzers-collectors4

dnsstuff.com/network-traffic-monitors4

greengeeks.com/blog/best-network-monitoring-software4

guideflow.com/blog/network-monitoring-tools4

kentik.com/kentipedia/best-network-monitoring-tools-20264

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

wireshark.org is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Wireshark takes 0% of first choices and Auvik takes 26%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “network monitoring tool”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “network monitoring tools”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 60,500 a month (“wireshark”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 5,563 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 201,720 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 6,756 · 1,856 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 27,730
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

2 ads · 2 text · 2 shown in the last 30 days

First shown May 2023, as SharkFest Foundation, verified.

On Google's pages: 1 2

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 24 of 78 in network monitoring

Segment leader

26%

Auvik

First choices: 1 across its categories
Named in: 24 answers
Its own site cited: in 17 of the answers that named it

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.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on wireshark.org

515

subdomains included

Content

427

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest
News or press	334	undated
Blog	86	0	2025-01-01
Template or tool	5	undated
Conference or event	2	undated

Most recent

2025-01-01Those arent packets blog
2024-08-01Whats new in wireshark 4 4 blog
2024-01-01From network packets to log data how logray built upon falcos foundation blog
2023-09-01The evolution of system introspection from bpf to wireshark to falco blog
2023-07-01Wireshark is 25 blog
2023-03-01Announcing the wireshark foundation blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page wireshark.org 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.

Follow Wireshark

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

Wireshark is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: The world's leading network protocol analyzer
wireshark.org
For: professionals worldwide
wireshark.org
Free plan or trial: free and open source wireshark.org
Certifications: Wireshark Certified Analyst
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, integrations, hosting, customers

What Wireshark's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: wireshark.org. 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 Wireshark'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 Wireshark, 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 Wireshark by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Wireshark 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 Wireshark, 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.