Who Is Winning AI Visibility in Security
To find gaps and opportunities, you first need to know who AI engines cite in your security category today. This chapter gives you a repeatable method for competitive citation analysis, then walks through five major categories. For each one it shows the vendors you are likely to meet in AI answers and the public assets that tend to earn those citations.
How to Analyze Competitive AI Citation
You need a repeatable method before you look at any category. Run it monthly to track trends.
The AI Citation Audit Process
Step 1: Define your query set. Build a list of 30 to 50 queries that represent what your buyers ask AI engines. Organize them by type:
- 10 to 15 category comparison queries ("Best [category] tools for [context]")
- 10 to 15 technical evaluation queries ("How does [technology] handle [specific capability]?")
- 5 to 10 problem-solution queries ("How do I solve [security challenge]?")
- 5 to 10 vendor-specific queries ("[Your company] vs [competitor] for [use case]")
Step 2: Run queries across platforms. Test each query on ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot and Google (AI Overviews and AI Mode). Add Gemini and Claude if your buyers use them. Run each query more than once, because answers vary. Record:
| Data Point | How to Record |
|---|---|
| Which vendors are mentioned | List every brand named in the response |
| Position in response | First mention, second mention, and so on |
| Context of citation | Recommended, compared, or just mentioned |
| Source linked (if any) | Which URL the engine links to |
| Sentiment | Positive, neutral or negative framing |
Step 3: Calculate share of voice. For each query, calculate each vendor's share of voice as a percentage of total mentions. Aggregate across all queries for your category-level share of voice.
Step 4: Identify citation patterns. Look at what gets cited: content types, publication venues, page structures and author profiles that recur.
Automate this once the manual version works. Run your query set monthly and track changes in a spreadsheet or a monitoring tool. Over three months you will see which vendors are gaining or losing citation share. That data is the foundation of your competitive GEO strategy. The Practical Guide to AI Search Visibility explains how to choose a monitoring tool.
Category-by-Category Analysis
The notes below come from my own checks of security buyer queries across the major assistants. They are qualitative. I deliberately do not publish citation-share percentages, because they shift month to month and vary by query set, platform and run. Run the audit above for your own category; your results are the ones that count.
Ownership has also changed fast. Several leaders below now belong to larger companies, and buyers (and AI answers) often still use the old names. Cover both names in your content.
Identity and Access Management (IAM)
Vendors you will often see cited: Okta, Microsoft Entra ID, CyberArk, Ping Identity
| Vendor | Status (November 2026) | Assets that tend to earn citations |
|---|---|---|
| Okta | Independent | Extensive public developer documentation and identity guides |
| Microsoft Entra ID | Microsoft (formerly Azure AD) | Microsoft Learn documentation and ecosystem integration guides |
| CyberArk | Part of Palo Alto Networks since February 2026; still sold as a standalone platform | Privileged access content and machine identity research |
| Ping Identity | Combined with ForgeRock in 2023 | Federation and standards expertise, technical documentation |
Pattern: Implementation-level documentation wins. Ask "How do I implement SSO for a multi-tenant SaaS application?" and the cited pages are usually step-by-step developer docs. Vendors competing in IAM should produce implementation content, not just product marketing.
Opportunity (my view): Customer identity and access management (CIAM) answers often fall back on generic workforce IAM content. A vendor with thorough, CIAM-specific technical content has room to lead. CIAM Compass shows what that category coverage looks like.
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
Vendors you will often see cited: CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR
| Vendor | Assets that tend to earn citations |
|---|---|
| CrowdStrike | Threat intelligence reports and adversary tracking research |
| SentinelOne | Technical blog content and threat research |
| Microsoft Defender for Endpoint | Microsoft Learn deployment and integration documentation |
| Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR | XDR category content and analyst coverage |
Pattern: CrowdStrike's visibility rests heavily on its threat intelligence brand. Its adversary naming convention (Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear and other animal-themed names) is widely adopted by journalists. Every news story that uses those names links back, which feeds the next answer.
Opportunity (my view): Mid-market EDR guidance is thin. Queries like "best EDR for companies with no dedicated SOC" often get enterprise-oriented answers. A vendor targeting that segment with tailored content has room to stand out.
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
Vendors you will often see cited: Wiz, Palo Alto Networks Cortex Cloud (formerly Prisma Cloud), Orca Security, AWS Security Hub
| Vendor | Status (November 2026) | Assets that tend to earn citations |
|---|---|---|
| Wiz | Part of Google Cloud since March 2026; keeps the Wiz brand | Fast, technically specific research and cloud vulnerability write-ups |
| Cortex Cloud | Palo Alto Networks' successor to Prisma Cloud, announced February 2025 | Broad platform documentation and analyst coverage |
| Orca Security | Independent | Agentless-approach content and cloud risk research |
| AWS Security Hub | Amazon Web Services | AWS documentation |
Pattern: Wiz is a strong example of content strategy in security. Its research team publishes technically specific write-ups on cloud vulnerabilities that the security press picks up and links. That is the external credibility loop described in Chapter 5.
Note the naming trap: many buyers and older pages still say "Prisma Cloud." A Cortex Cloud comparison page that ignores the old name misses those queries.
Opportunity (my view): Multi-cloud posture management is often covered one cloud at a time. A single resource that covers AWS, Azure and Google Cloud together has room to stand out.
SIEM and Security Analytics
Vendors you will often see cited: Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic Security, Sumo Logic
| Vendor | Status (November 2026) | Assets that tend to earn citations |
|---|---|---|
| Splunk | Part of Cisco since March 2024 | Years of community content, Splunk Answers, .conf talks, SPL guides |
| Microsoft Sentinel | Microsoft | KQL documentation and Azure ecosystem integration |
| Elastic Security | Elastic | Open detection rules and community content |
| Sumo Logic | Independent | Cloud-native SIEM content |
Pattern: Splunk's visibility is a legacy of years of content investment. Its community content creates a huge surface for citation. Much of it is aging, which leaves room for vendors with current, cloud-native material.
Opportunity (my view): "SIEM alternatives" and "SIEM replacement" answers are often inconsistent or dated. A vendor with clear, comparative and current content can compete here.
Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA)
Vendors you will often see cited: Zscaler, Cloudflare, Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access, Netskope
| Vendor | Assets that tend to earn citations |
|---|---|
| Zscaler | Long-running zero trust educational content |
| Cloudflare | Developer documentation and a widely read technical blog |
| Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access | SASE framework content and analyst coverage |
| Netskope | CASB and security service edge (SSE) content |
Pattern: Zscaler published zero trust educational content early, before many competitors. That early investment still earns citations even as rivals have caught up technically.
Opportunity (my view): Zero trust implementation for specific verticals (healthcare, financial services, government) is thinly covered. Vertical implementation content can win those high-value queries.
For implementation frameworks that complement this chapter, see The Zero Trust Playbook for B2B SaaS.
Cross-Category Patterns
Across all five categories, the same patterns explain who leads.
Do not treat any category snapshot as fixed. AI citation share moves faster than classic search rankings. In my experience, a vendor that executes a focused GEO program can change its citation share noticeably within a quarter. Refresh your audit monthly and use it as a directional guide.
Pattern 1: Depth and Volume of Useful Content
The vendors cited most consistently have large libraries of technically deep, well-structured content. There are no shortcuts. Citation leadership takes sustained investment.
Pattern 2: Third-Party Presence Amplifies On-Site Content
Vendors whose research is picked up by the security press, or who publish on outlets such as Security Boulevard and DZone, are cited beyond their own domains.
Pattern 3: Developer-Friendly Content Outperforms Marketing Content
In every category, implementation-focused, technically specific content earns the most citations. Product marketing pages rarely get cited.
Pattern 4: Freshness Pays
Vendors that keep content current (quarterly or more often) hold citations better than vendors with stale libraries, even when the stale content was strong originally.
Pattern 5: Category Definitions Last
Vendors that published the definitive "What is [category]?" explainer early keep earning citations long after competitors arrive. If you are in an emerging category, publish that explainer now.
Building Your Competitive Dashboard
Create a monthly dashboard that tracks:
- Your AI citation share across your 30 to 50 query set
- Your top three competitors' citation share for the same queries
- New competitor content on third-party platforms
- Analyst coverage mentioning competitors
- Conference presence of key competitors
This data feeds your content strategy, publication priorities and resource allocation for the 90-day playbook in the next chapter.