GTM AI Index

Index › Products › PhishEye · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

PhishEye

3Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

3 / 14Models named it

1Category

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

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. PhishEye was named 3 times in Brand protection, where Red Points led with 40%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market20 of 84

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In brand 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 PhishEye 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%	20 of 84	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by Red Points at 40%

Movement

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

ShowHide

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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Choose PhishEye if: You need cost-effective protection for a portfolio of brands.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Brand protection · comparative prompt · alternative

“specifically recommended for small businesses and offers a user-friendly approach” Mistral Small · Brand protection · budget prompt · alternative

“PhishEye — Best for Phishing & Domain Threats” Kimi K2 · Brand protection · direct 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as PhishEye, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and PhishEye was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

IP Moat1 of 31Not among the top eight

Red Points1 of 31Not among the top eight

Smart Protection1 of 31Not among the top eight

ZeroFox1 of 31Not among the top eight

BrandVerity1 of 30Not among the top eight

Corsearch1 of 30Not among the top eight

MarqVision1 of 30Not among the top eight

Sentryc1 of 30Not 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 PhishEye. 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 3 of the 3 answers that named PhishEye and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

sourceforge.net3

geekflare.com2

mailmodo.com2

spotsaas.com2

brandmodality.com1

brandverity.com1

capterra.ie1

cyberpress.org1

expertinsights.com1

g2.com1

Fifteen of the fifteen domain citations in answers naming PhishEye came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

geekflare.com/reviews/brand-protection-software2

mailmodo.com/marketing-stash/brand-protection-software2

brandmodality.com/best-brand-protection-tools-for-safeguarding-your-brand1

brandverity.com/blog/best-online-brand-protection-software-tools1

capterra.ie/directory/31519/brand-protection/software1

cyberpress.org/best-brand-protection-solutions-for-enterprises1

expertinsights.com/compliance/the-top-brand-protection-solutions1

g2.com/categories/brand-protection1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

phisheye.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, PhishEye 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: 10 a month (“phisheye”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 0 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 17 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 42 · 0 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 445
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 20 of 84 in brand protection

Segment leader

40%

Red Points

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 3 answers
Its own site cited: in 3 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 phisheye.com

161

subdomains included

Content

117

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

22 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest
Blog	47	21	2026-10-04
Comparison	29	0	2026-07-01
Glossary or explainer	27	undated
Template or tool	10	undated
Case study	3	0	2026-04-30
Report or ebook	1	0	2026-03-26

Most recent

2026-10-04Giftwatch smartwatch phishing kit egypt banks blog
2026-09-30Matchube youtube sponsorship phishing blog
2026-09-28Ukvi sponsor licence phishing email blog
2026-09-21Stayhook hotel booking phishing cluster blog
2026-09-19Revolut phishing domains september 2026 blog
2026-09-18Brand in subdomain wildcard cert blind spot blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page phisheye.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. Read October 5, 2026.

Follow PhishEye

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

PhishEye is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Digital risk protection platform for phishing, scams, impersonation, brand abuse, typosquatting, and takedowns.
phisheye.com
For: security, fraud, threat intel, and brand-protection teams
phisheye.com
Price stated: Annual billing saves 20%. phisheye.com/pricing
Free plan or trial: Free monitoring phisheye.com
Integrations claimed: 9 phisheye.com/pricing
Certifications: STIX 2.1 / TAXII 2.1
Hosting: Global
Not stated on the pages read: Starting price, customers

What PhishEye's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: phisheye.com, phisheye.com/pricing, phisheye.com/trust, phisheye.com/platform, phisheye.com/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 PhishEye'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 PhishEye, 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 PhishEye by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where PhishEye 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 PhishEye, 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.