GTM AI Index

Index › Products › Spider AF · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Spider AF

15Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

7 / 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

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Spider AF was named 7 times in Click fraud protection, where ClickCease led with 36%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business17 of 45

under the label threshold

Mid-market17 of 52

under the label threshold

Enterprise16 of 49

under the label threshold

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 Spider AF 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	0%	17 of 52	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by ClickCease at 36%

Movement

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

ShowHide

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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative7 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 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.

“The best click fraud protection software in 2025 is Spider AF, which provides real-time protection across 30+ ad networks” Muse Glimmer 30B · Click fraud protection · comparative prompt · alternative

“An all-in-one ad fraud detection tool that detects, blocks, and prevents click fraud” Mistral Small · Click fraud protection · comparative prompt · alternative

“Another strong option, especially for protecting Google Ads campaigns.” Mistral Small · Click fraud protection · direct prompt · alternative

“Optionally add Cometly or Spider AF” GLM 4.7 FlashX · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Spider AF, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Spider AF was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ClickCease11 of 157Not among the top eight

Lunio11 of 156Not among the top eight

ClickGUARD10 of 150Not among the top eight

TrafficGuard9 of 151Not among the top eight

Cheq9 of 150Not among the top eight

Fraud Blocker8 of 150Not among the top eight

Anura6 of 150Not among the top eight

ClickPatrol5 of 151Not among the top eight

Clixtell4 of 150Not among the top eight

DataDome4 of 150Not 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 Spider AF. 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 15 of the 15 answers that named Spider AF and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

lunio.ai10

guideflow.com9

spideraf.comYour site9

trafficguard.ai8

clickcease.com6

clickpatrol.com6

clixtell.com6

geetest.com6

improvado.io6

sourceforge.net6

Sixty-three of the seventy-two domain citations in answers naming Spider AF came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/best-click-fraud-software9

lunio.ai/blog/the-9-best-click-fraud-detection-tools-ranked8

spideraf.com/articles/best-click-fraud-protection-software-in-20257

trafficguard.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-protection-software-protect-your-ppc-campaigns7

clixtell.com/blog/top-click-fraud-protection-software-20256

geetest.com/en/article/click-fraud-prevention-tools6

improvado.io/blog/best-ad-fraud-detection-software6

clickcease.com/blog/clickcease-vs-competitors-20265

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow Spider AF

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

where Spider AF 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 Spider AF, 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.