GTM AI Index

Index › Products › Cheq · October 2026 Edition

3 categories · Ranked

Cheq

99Judge labels

18First choices

16Negative labels

14 / 14Models named it

3Categories

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.

Best standing

31% in Click fraud protection for enterprise buyers

Rank 5 of 52 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger

0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 11% of its 27 labels there were negative.

What the models named instead of Cheq →

By buyer segmentAn enterprise product: leader at enterprise, not named at small business.

Small business45 of 45

criticized challenger

In click fraud protection · 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 Cheq 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
Click fraud protection	Marketing	4%	5 of 52	11%	27	accepted challenger
Brand protection platforms	Marketing	0%	58 of 84	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Red Points at 40%
Mobile apps	Marketing	0%	62 of 117	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Customer.io at 17%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Cheq 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 Cheq 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	2	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.20	0	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	2	1	0	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Kimi K2	0	2	1	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	1	0	2
GPT-6 Luna	0	2	0	0	2
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	2	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

Direct13 labels7

Paraphrase18 labels6

Comparative24 labels4not counted in share

Budget-constrained10 labels3

Scale-constrained12 labels2

Negative22 labels5not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative99 labels in all, every segment counted; 18 of the 27 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.

“The four tools most consistently recommended for enterprise advertisers are Lunio, CHEQ, DataDome, and Anura” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Click fraud protection · scale prompt · first choice

“1. CHEQ - Strongest overall pick” MiniMax M2.5 · Click fraud protection · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“CHEQ or HUMAN Security are enterprise-grade cybersecurity tools that protect the entire marketing funnel and CRM from bot entries.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Click fraud protection · scale prompt · alternative

“I'd consider CHEQ instead if your bigger problem is fake form fills and keeping junk out of HubSpot or Salesforce” GPT-6 Luna · Click fraud protection · paraphrase 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.

“CHEQ's detection is tuned for security use cases rather than campaign performance, and ad fraud sits alongside many other modules” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Click fraud protection · comparative prompt · soft negative

“Mixed evidence makes it a candidate for caution, especially for budget‑constrained advertisers.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · soft negative

“Detection is tuned for security use cases rather than campaign performance” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Cheq, over the 99 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cheq was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lunio74 of 9927Compare →

ClickCease62 of 9915Compare →

TrafficGuard47 of 992Compare →

ClickGUARD45 of 994Compare →

Anura35 of 990Not among the top eight

DataDome33 of 990Not among the top eight

Fraud Blocker32 of 992Compare →

ClickPatrol21 of 993Compare →

HUMAN Security18 of 990Not among the top eight

Clixtell14 of 992Compare →

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 Cheq. 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 97 of the 99 answers that named Cheq and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

lunio.ai80

guideflow.com62

clickpatrol.com49

trafficguard.ai42

clickcease.com37

improvado.io30

zipdo.co30

clickguardian.ai29

cometly.com29

joindatacops.com27

415 of the 415 domain citations in answers naming Cheq came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/best-click-fraud-software60

lunio.ai/blog/the-9-best-click-fraud-detection-tools-ranked59

lunio.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-detection-tools-for-enterprise-advertisers51

trafficguard.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-protection-software-protect-your-ppc-campaigns33

improvado.io/blog/best-ad-fraud-detection-software30

clickpatrol.com/best-click-fraud-protection-software29

cometly.com/post/ad-fraud-detection-software29

geetest.com/en/article/click-fraud-prevention-tools26

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

cheq.ai is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Cheq takes 4% of first choices and ClickCease takes 36%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “click fraud protection tool”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “best click fraud protection tool”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 1,600 a month (“cheq”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 55 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 7,629 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 1,523 · 64 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 4,401
Paid Google search: 1 searches its ads show for, about 15 clicks and $1,062 a month (estimate)

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

50 ads · 50 text · 21 shown in the last 30 days

First shown October 2023, as CHEQ AI TECHNOLOGIES (2018) LTD, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 9 in the year, 41 before. 1 more by other advertisers linking to it.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 5 of 52 in click fraud protection

Segment leader

36%

ClickCease

First choices: 18 across its categories
Named in: 99 answers
Its own site cited: in 97 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 cheq.ai

696

subdomains included

Content

361

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

21 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	244	11	2026-09-24	SEO, Tag management
Glossary or explainer	29	0	2025-09-17	SEO
Case study	24	2	2026-08-12
Webinar or virtual event	18	1	2026-07-30	ABM
Conference or event	13	2	2026-08-25
Podcast or video	13	0	2025-08-01
Report or ebook	12	1	2026-09-24
Comparison	5	1	2026-09-01
Template or tool	2	0	2024-06-18
News or press	1	0	2021-12-14

Most recent

2026-09-24Report agentic black friday blog
2026-09-24Thank you e book cheq agentic black friday report or ebook
2026-09-11The captcha is dead dont mourn it its time to move on blog
2026-09-10User data validation agent intent blog
2026-09-03Web bot auth solves identity but is that enough blog
2026-09-01Captcha alternatives comparison

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page cheq.ai 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 Cheq

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

CHEQ 23CHEQ Essentials 2CHEQ (GTM / CHEQ Essentials) 1

Follow Cheq

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

Cheq is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: The Go-to-Market Security Platform
cheq.ai
For: go-to-market
cheq.ai
Free plan or trial: Get a free scan cheq.ai/solutions/bot-management
Certifications: SOC 2 compliantSOC 2 Type IIISO 27001ISO 27701ISO 42001GDPR complianceGDPR CompliantCCPA Compliant
Hosting: Tel-AvivNew YorkTokyoLondon
Customers named: Boundless LearningTeam InternetLinkvertiseThe Good GuysSpace NKCventHowden JoineryTipalti
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, integrations

What Cheq's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: cheq.ai, cheq.ai/trust, cheq.ai/solutions/bot-management, cheq.ai/case-studies. 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 Cheq'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 Cheq, 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 Cheq by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Cheq 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 Cheq, 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.