Every category where a model named ClickGuardian 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	2%	12 of 52	20%	10	accepted challenger

Movement

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

Direct4 labels1

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative4 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained4 labels2

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative9 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative27 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 6 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.

“Tools like ClickGuardian (flat-fee for SMBs) or those with multi-platform support often edge out for balance.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · first choice

“Small business with Google Ads: ClickGuardian or Fraud Blocker (flat fee, simple)” MiniMax M2.5 · Click fraud protection · comparative prompt · first choice

“Best Budget Pick: ClickGuardian — $49/month” Kimi K2 · Click fraud protection · budget prompt · first choice

“offers flat-fee click fraud protection from $49 a month for SMBs on Google Ads and Microsoft Advertising” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Click fraud protection · budget 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.

“ClickGuardian: “Third-party review coverage is thin... Both samples are too small to read as a verdict.”” Muse Glimmer 30B · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · soft negative

“Frequently lumped together in “style” lists but rarely stand out with clear, independent evidence.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ClickGuardian, over the 27 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ClickGuardian was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ClickCease21 of 277Not among the top eight

Fraud Blocker19 of 272Not among the top eight

ClickGUARD18 of 270Not among the top eight

TrafficGuard13 of 270Not among the top eight

Lunio11 of 272Not among the top eight

Cheq9 of 272Not among the top eight

Clixtell7 of 271Not among the top eight

ClickPatrol6 of 270Not among the top eight

Anura5 of 271Not among the top eight

ClickFortify4 of 270Not among the top eight

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 ClickGuardian. 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 27 of the 27 answers that named ClickGuardian and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

clickguardian.aiYour site22

guideflow.com20

lunio.ai20

clickpatrol.com15

clickfortify.com13

g2.com13

improvado.io13

clickcease.com12

adsafee.com11

mailmodo.com11

128 of the 150 domain citations in answers naming ClickGuardian came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

clickguardian.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-protection21

guideflow.com/blog/best-click-fraud-software20

lunio.ai/blog/the-9-best-click-fraud-detection-tools-ranked18

improvado.io/blog/best-ad-fraud-detection-software13

mailmodo.com/marketing-stash/click-fraud-software11

clickpatrol.com/best-click-fraud-protection-software10

thecmo.com/tools/best-click-fraud-software10

clickcease.com/blog/clickcease-vs-competitors-20269

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

clickguardian.ai is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ClickGuardian takes 2% 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: 20 a month (“clickguardian”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 0 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 19 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 38 · 0 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 145
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

1 ads · 1 text · 0 shown in the last 30 days

First shown March 2026, as Further Forward Innovation Ltd, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 1 in the year.

On Google's pages: 1

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 12 of 52 in click fraud protection

Segment leader

36%

ClickCease

First choices: 3 across its categories
Named in: 27 answers
Its own site cited: in 27 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 clickguardian.ai

151

subdomains included

Content

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

7 · 3

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	72	23	2026-09-28	Click fraud protection
Comparison	15	3	2026-09-01	SEO
Glossary or explainer	3	0	2026-06-08
Case study	1	0	2017-08-01
Template or tool	1	undated

Most recent

2026-09-28Google ads account suspended blog
2026-09-21Microsoft ads click fraud blog
2026-09-18Best amazon ppc agencies uk blog
2026-09-18Best ecommerce ppc agencies uk blog
2026-09-18Best manufacturing marketing agencies uk blog
2026-09-18Best saas ppc agencies uk blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page clickguardian.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. Read October 5, 2026.

Follow ClickGuardian

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.

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 ClickGuardian'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 ClickGuardian, 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 ClickGuardian by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where ClickGuardian 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 ClickGuardian, 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.