Every category where a model named MarkMonitor 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
Brand protection platforms	Marketing	0%	30 of 84	30%	10	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for MarkMonitor 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 MarkMonitor across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	1	3
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0	0

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

Direct6 labels1

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative13 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained9 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labels1

Negative8 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative44 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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.

“Comprehensive for domain management, trademark infringement, and online fraud... Best for large enterprises with complex IP portfolios” Grok 4.1 Fast · Brand protection · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for: Domain protection and external threat intelligence” Kimi K2 · Brand protection · comparative 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.

“MarkMonitor offers the most comprehensive suite (including dedicated legal support), but its price tag is significantly higher.” MiniMax M2.5 · Brand protection · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Inconsistent customer service — Reviews describe "absolutely horrible customer service," long wait times” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Brand protection · negative prompt · soft negative

“can be prohibitively expensive, often costing thousands of dollars per month” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Brand protection · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as MarkMonitor, over the 44 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MarkMonitor was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Red Points41 of 4416Not among the top eight

BrandShield36 of 443Not among the top eight

Corsearch35 of 444Not among the top eight

ZeroFox21 of 442Not among the top eight

MarqVision12 of 442Not among the top eight

Bolster12 of 440Not among the top eight

Netcraft9 of 442Not among the top eight

CSC7 of 440Not among the top eight

OpSec Security7 of 440Not among the top eight

OpSec4 of 440Not 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 MarkMonitor. 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 37 of the 44 answers that named MarkMonitor and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

redpoints.com34

spotsaas.com23

gartner.com18

expertinsights.com17

g2.com17

guideflow.com17

quasa.io17

brandshield.com16

worldmetrics.org16

marqvision.com15

190 of the 190 domain citations in answers naming MarkMonitor came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

redpoints.com/blog/best-brand-protection-software30

gartner.com/reviews/market/brand-protection-software18

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-brand-protection-solutions17

guideflow.com/blog/brand-protection-software17

quasa.io/insights/7-best-brand-protection-platforms-in-2026-ranked-reviewed17

spotsaas.com/blog/12-best-brand-protection-software-for-202614

worldmetrics.org/best/brand-protection-software14

i2oretail.com/analyst-reviews-on-leading-brand-protection-platforms13

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

markmonitor.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, MarkMonitor takes 0% of first choices and Red Points takes 40%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “brand protection platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “best brand protection platform”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 2,400 a month (“markmonitor”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 65 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 2,830 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 1,113 · 34 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 73,045
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on Google

None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 30 of 84 in brand protection

Segment leader

40%

Red Points

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 44 answers
Its own site cited: in 37 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 markmonitor.com

1,237

subdomains included

Content

119

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest
Blog	51	0	2025-12-02
Report or ebook	34	1	2026-07-15
Webinar or virtual event	21	0	2026-06-12
News or press	10	0	2026-04-30
Template or tool	1	0	2026-02-24
Glossary or explainer	1	0	2025-02-28
Podcast or video	1	0	2025-04-02

Most recent

2026-07-15Markmonitor university enterprise domain management training report or ebook
2026-06-12The dotbrand decision webinar webinar or virtual event
2026-06-11The dotbrand decision webinar webinar or virtual event
2026-05-05Markmonitor china internet content provider icp recordal service report or ebook
2026-04-30Markmonitor launches intelligence led online brand protection for the ai era news or press
2026-04-09Markmonitor group new gtld report q1 2026 report or ebook

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page markmonitor.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 October 5, 2026.

Names read as MarkMonitor

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

MarkMonitor (part of Clarivate) 2MarkMonitor (Clarity) 1

Follow MarkMonitor

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

where MarkMonitor 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 MarkMonitor, 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.