Every category where a model named ZenGRC 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
GRC platforms	Security operations	7%	6 of 77	7%	14	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	0	2	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	2	1	0	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	2	0	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	0	1

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

Direct6 labels3

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained6 labels3

Scale-constrained5 labels1

Negative8 labels3not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative34 labels in all, every segment counted; 7 of the 10 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.

“I'd recommend starting with LogicGate Risk Cloud or ZenGRC. ... ZenGRC offers better multi-framework mapping capabilities” MiniMax M2.5 · GRC · direct prompt · first choice

“or ZenGRC for multi-framework compliance — both offer the right balance of capability” Kimi K2 · GRC · direct prompt · first choice

“Shortlist 2-3 vendors in the mid-market tier (LogicGate, Hyperproof, AuditBoard, ZenGRC)” Kimi K2 · GRC · scale prompt · first choice

“LogicGate or ZenGRC are typically the best starting points” GLM 4.7 FlashX · GRC · 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.

“Cons: User interface can feel dated; implementation can be slower.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · GRC · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ZenGRC, over the 34 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ZenGRC was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management23 of 341Not in the top three

MetricStream21 of 341Not in the top three

Hyperproof20 of 343Not in the top three

Vanta20 of 343Not in the top three

Archer19 of 340Not in the top three

Drata18 of 341Not in the top three

OneTrust18 of 340Not in the top three

AuditBoard17 of 341Not in the top three

LogicGate13 of 341Not in the top three

Secureframe11 of 340Not 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 ZenGRC. 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 30 of the 34 answers that named ZenGRC and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

zengrc.comYour site14

expertinsights.com13

initiarisk.com12

orbiqhq.com12

riskwatch.com11

comchart.com9

complyjet.com9

reddit.com9

saltycloud.com9

apono.io8

Ninety-two of the 106 domain citations in answers naming ZenGRC came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

comchart.com/grc-software-mid-market9

complyjet.com/blog/best-grc-software9

saltycloud.com/blog/mid-market-grc-tools-and-solutions9

apono.io/blog/top-10-governance-risk-and-compliance-grc-software-solutions8

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-governance-risk-compliance-grc-platforms8

initiarisk.com/resources/best-grc-software-for-mid-market-companies-20268

riskwatch.com/grc-software8

enzuzo.com/blog/best-grc-software7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ZenGRC

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

Reciprocity 1ZenGRC (Reciprocity) 1ZenGRC (Riskonnect) 1ZenGRC (by Reciprocity) 1ZenGRC by RiskOptics 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 ZenGRC'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 ZenGRC, 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 zengrc.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.