Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 19 → 18 of 58
2 categories · RankedZenGRC
65Judge labels
16First choices
8Negative labels
11 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
14% in GRC for mid-market buyers
Rank 3 of 75 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
5 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 10% of its 29 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of ZenGRC →By buyer segmentStrongest at mid-market.
Small business18 of 60
0%9 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market3 of 75
14%29 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise6 of 67
6%9 labels
under the label threshold
In grc · 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 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRC platforms | Security operations | 14% | 3 of 75 | 10% | 29 | accepted challenger | ▲+8Since September 2026: 7% → 15%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Compliance automation | Security operations | 2% | 9 of 67 | 20% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Drata at 34% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ZenGRC held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · GRC · by segment
Mid-market▲+8Since September 2026: 7% → 15%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
15%from 7% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 3 pointsRank 6 → 3 of 69
Enterprise▲+3Since September 2026: 4% → 7%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
7%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 8 → 6 of 65
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRC | 7% | 15% | ▲+8Since September 2026: 7% → 15%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 6 → 3 of 75 |
| Compliance automation | 0% | 2% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now. | New this edition | Rank 9 of 67, unchanged |
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 ZenGRC 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 ZenGRC 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
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
Direct14 labels5
Paraphrase7 labels3
Comparative12 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained19 labels8
Scale-constrained9 labelsNone
Negative4 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative65 labels in all, every segment counted; 16 of the 17 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.
“Best Overall for B2B Tech/SaaS Companies: ZenGRC ... frequently cited as the leading choice specifically for the mid-market segment” Qwen 3.7 Flash · GRC · direct prompt · first choice
“ZenGRC and AuditBoard are top choices due to their balance of usability, scalability, and feature depth.” Mistral Small · GRC · direct prompt · first choice
“ZenGRC is the best overall choice due to its balance of functionality, scalability, and ease of use.” Mistral Small · GRC · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For the most budget-friendly yet robust option, ZenGRC by Reciprocity is a strong choice” Mistral Small · Compliance automation · budget 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.
“capable, but the cited starting point of $2,500/month makes it less budget-friendly than Sprinto” Perplexity Sonar · Compliance automation · budget prompt · soft negative
“Lower-tier option; generally overshadowed by competitors with better usability.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · GRC · negative prompt · soft negative
“have high presence but inconsistent satisfaction; small samples hide issues” Grok 4.20 · GRC · negative prompt · soft negative
“Inadequate/limited reporting capabilities (frequently cited)” Kimi K2 · GRC · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ZenGRC, over the 65 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.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ZenGRC, over the 65 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.
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 ZenGRC. 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 62 of the 65 answers that named ZenGRC and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
zengrc.comYour site38
riskwatch.com37
complyjet.com26
orbiqhq.com23
incorp.com20
vanta.com20
expertinsights.com16
apono.io15
surecloud.com14
us.fitgap.com14
185 of the 223 domain citations in answers naming ZenGRC came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
zengrc.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ZenGRC takes 14% of first choices and Hyperproof takes 19%.ShowHide
Search and answers
zengrc.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ZenGRC takes 14% of first choices and Hyperproof takes 19%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “grc platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “grc platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 480 a month (“zengrc”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 4 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 29,603 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 7,587 · 519 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,305
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
14%
rank 3 of 75 in GRC
Segment leader
19%
Hyperproof
- First choices
- 16 across its categories
- Named in
- 65 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 62 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 zengrc.com
647
subdomains included
Content
420
counted in the table below
Documentation
104
Product · Integration
31 · 2
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 299 | 4 | 2026-09-15 | GRC, Compliance automation | |
| Comparison | 43 | 11 | 2026-09-09 | GRC, Compliance automation | |
| Glossary or explainer | 25 | 0 | 2026-04-28 | GRC | |
| Template or tool | 18 | 0 | 2026-06-16 | ||
| Report or ebook | 12 | 0 | 2026-04-27 | GRC | |
| News or press | 7 | 0 | 2026-02-24 | GRC | |
| Case study | 6 | 0 | 2023-01-05 | GRC | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 5 | 0 | 2022-03-18 | ||
| Conference or event | 4 | 1 | 2026-08-12 | ||
| Podcast or video | 1 | 0 | 2022-02-02 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-15Grc setup days not weeks blog
- 2026-09-09Zengrc pricing how it actually works blog
- 2026-09-09Zengrc vs archer comparison
- 2026-09-09Vanta review comparison
- 2026-09-01The real cost of recurring evidence collection done wrong blog
- 2026-08-31Onspring alternative comparison
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page zengrc.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 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.
ZenGRC by Reciprocity 3ZenGRC (now part of Reciprocity) 1
Follow ZenGRC
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
ZenGRC is its own company.ShowHide
The company
ZenGRC is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- GRC software for multi-framework compliance; a unified, flexible, full-featured GRC platform using agentic AI to power compliance, risk, and audit programs
- For
- organizations managing compliance, risk, audit, third-party risk management, and vendor management
- Price stated
- simple, flat-fee pricing; straightforward, all-inclusive price without hidden costs zengrc.com
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type II Trust Services CriteriaISO 27001:2022
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting, customers
What ZenGRC's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: zengrc.com, trust.zengrc.com, zengrc.com/product, zengrc.com/partners. 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 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.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ZenGRC by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ZenGRC 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 ZenGRC, 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 ZenGRC 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 ZenGRC is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideZenGRC is among the products AI models recommend first in GRC platforms 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.