2 categories · RankedSAFE Security
SAFE Security is a cyber risk quantification platform from SAFE that also covers third-party risk management · safe.security ↗
Leads at enterprise. Ranked 111 of 111 for small business buyers.
The standing depends on who is buying. Every model is asked the same questions for each company size.
FairCRQ is first at 35%.
CyberSaint CyberStrong is first at 13%. 2 of 14 models made it the first choice when asked directly.
Ranked first. Next is SAFE One at 14%.
Why models recommend it
“Strongest for FAIR methodology, broad security-tool integrations, and continuous quantification”Perplexity Sonar · Comparative question · first choice
“my default recommendation for a mid-sized B2B company would be: 1) Safe Security”GPT-5.4 mini · Paraphrase question · first choice
“I recommend starting with CyberSaint CyberStrong or Safe Security”Kimi K2 · Direct question · first choice
“Clear leader with 56% first-choice share among enterprise buyers”MiniMax M2.5 · Comparative question · first choice
What gives them pause
“Avoid enterprise tools like SAFE Security, Axio, or Balbix if budget is tight”DeepSeek V4 Flash · Budget-constrained question · warning
“Expensive, fully licensed FAIR platforms (like early versions of RiskLens or SAFE Security) for organizations that don’t have dedicated risk analysts.”Qwen 3.7 Flash · Negative question · warning
“Traditional, enterprise-grade CRQ platforms (e.g., Safe Security (SAFE One), Kovrr, Axio) - generally not recommended for B2B SMBs.”Llama 4 Maverick · Negative question · warning
“Enterprise tools like Safe Security can be overkill (and overpriced) if you don't have a large, complex attack surface.”DeepSeek V4 Flash · Direct question · warning
Also on the shortlist
The products named in the same answers as SAFE Security, over the 117 answers that named it, and how often each was the first choice instead.
| Product | Named together | Picked instead | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 74 | 6 | Compare → | |
| 63 | 7 | Compare → | |
| 54 | 1 | Compare → | |
| 42 | 3 | Compare → | |
| 34 | 0 | View → | |
| 31 | 1 | Compare → | |
| 27 | 5 | Compare → | |
| 18 | 2 | View → | |
| 17 | 1 | View → | |
| 14 | 0 | View → |
What the models named instead of SAFE Security →
A side-by-side page exists where both products are among a category's top eight.
At a glance
Stated on SAFE Security's own site, not checked by Gane.
- For
- security teams
- Integrations
- 100
- Certifications
- TX-RAMP, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, SOC 3, ISO 9001
- Customers named
- Victoria’s Secret & Co., T-Mobile, Instacart, San Francisco Health Plan, Carvana, Booz Allen Hamilton, Aboitiz Power, OB Hospitalist Group
How this is measured
Fourteen AI models from 12 labs are asked the same buying questions six ways, for three company sizes. Standings refresh every edition.
Gane sells AI visibility software. No company can pay to change a result.
Read the method →Sources returned with these answers
Fourteen of the fourteen models returned a source list in this edition: five return the pages they cited and nine the search results they consulted. These counts come from 112 of the 117 answers that named SAFE Security and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
311 of the 395 domain citations in answers naming SAFE Security came from a third party's page. Fifty-two were to the publisher's own pages (the Gane Index), which the models cite like any other source; they are not counted as a third party.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
By model
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Warning | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
What it publishes
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-11 to 2026-10 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 513 | 7 | 2026-10-02 | TPRM, Cyber risk quant | |
| Glossary or explainer | 246 | 2 | 2026-08-26 | TPRM, Cyber risk quant | |
| Report or ebook | 60 | 2 | 2026-09-23 | TPRM, Cyber risk quant | |
| News or press | 55 | 0 | 2026-05-28 | Cyber risk quant, TPRM | |
| Podcast or video | 33 | 0 | 2026-03-11 | TPRM, GRC | |
| Webinar or virtual event | 27 | 0 | 2026-05-20 | TPRM | |
| Comparison | 26 | 1 | 2026-09-11 | TPRM, EDR | |
| Case study | 19 | 1 | 2026-07-08 | TPRM | |
| Template or tool | 13 | 9 | 2026-09-25 | TPRM | |
| Conference or event | 12 | 1 | 2026-07-21 | TPRM, Cyber risk quant |
Most recent
- 2026-10-02Manufacturer vendor risk assessment automation blog
- 2026-10-02Cve 2026 34486 apache tomcat encryptinterceptor bypass to remote code execution blog
- 2026-10-01This Week’s CVE Priorities: Citrix, Check Point, F5, Cisco, and PeopleSoft Under Active Exploitation blog
- 2026-09-30No nonsense guide to tprm in 2026 book blog
- 2026-09-30CVE-2026-82329 | JFrog Artifactory Blank-Join-Key Authentication Bypass (Unauthenticated Admin Takeover) blog
- 2026-09-30Cve 2026 49049 joomshaper helix3 joomla unauthenticated arbitrary json file write blog
Events in person
- October 5, 2026Course: Cyber Risk Analysisplace not stated · hosts
- October 5, 2026Workshop: Rethinking TPRM for Risk Management Program Leadersplace not stated · hosts
- October 5, 2026FAIR Practitioner Masterclass: Lessons from Successful Programsplace not stated · hosts
- October 5, 2026Workshop: AI for Risk Practitioners: Use It. Measure it. Manage it.place not stated · hosts
- October 5, 2026Advanced FAIR Workshop: Risk Appetite and Decison Analyticsplace not stated · hosts
- November 10, 2026FAIR Forward: Introducing FAIR Institute 2.0place not stated · hosts
- October 4, 2026 to October 5, 2026Course Bundle: FAIR™ Foundations and Cyber Risk Analysis Coursesplace not stated · hosted
- October 4, 2026Course: FAIR™ Foundationsplace not stated · hosted
- October 4, 2026Cyber Risk Communications & Reporting (NEW)place not stated · hosted
- September 23, 2026An Invitation-Only Executive ReceptionSunborn London Yacht Hotel Sky Lounge & Deck, Royal Victoria Dock, London, UK · hosted
- September 23, 2026What You Don’t Know About Your Third PartiesTheater 1, London, UK · spoke
- September 23, 2026Mythos changed the vulnerability & exploit game. Are we still playing by old rules?Maritime Suite 19, London, UK · hosted
- September 22, 2026 to September 24, 2026Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2026ExCeL London, London, UK · exhibited
- September 22, 2026Life After Mythos: How Hundreds of AI Agents Manage Millions of Vulnerabilities DailyMaritime Suite 25, London, UK · spoke
As the event pages on safe.security state them, read October 5, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page safe.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.