Every category where a model named TrafficGuard 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%	9 of 52	3%	30	accepted challenger
Mobile apps	Marketing	0%	76 of 117	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Customer.io at 17%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

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

Direct14 labelsNone

Paraphrase10 labelsNone

Comparative28 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained13 labels3

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative15 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative85 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 7 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.

“Go with [ClickFortify](https://clickfortify.com/) or [TrafficGuard's free tier](https://www.trafficguard.ai/)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Click fraud protection · budget prompt · first choice

“choose enterprise-grade, security-first platforms (like *Human Security*, *DataDome*, or *TrafficGuard*)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · first choice

“Best for widest channel coverage: TrafficGuard protects Search, Performance Max, Social, Affiliate, and Mobile from one platform.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Click fraud protection · direct prompt · alternative

“TrafficGuard delivers real-time, full-funnel prevention across Search, Performance Max, Meta, Affiliate and Mobile.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Click fraud 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.

“Requires careful baselines to avoid false positives during campaigns, has limited coverage detail for proxy and data-center traffic categories” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Click fraud protection · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as TrafficGuard, over the 85 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and TrafficGuard was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lunio62 of 8528Compare →

ClickCease61 of 8527Compare →

Cheq47 of 8510Compare →

ClickGUARD46 of 852Compare →

Fraud Blocker33 of 855Compare →

Anura23 of 852Not among the top eight

DataDome22 of 852Not among the top eight

ClickPatrol20 of 850Compare →

Clixtell16 of 852Compare →

HUMAN Security14 of 851Not 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 TrafficGuard. 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 84 of the 85 answers that named TrafficGuard and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

lunio.ai64

guideflow.com56

trafficguard.aiYour site55

clickpatrol.com44

clickcease.com41

sourceforge.net29

clickguardian.ai28

improvado.io28

thecmo.com22

clickfortify.com21

333 of the 388 domain citations in answers naming TrafficGuard came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

guideflow.com/blog/best-click-fraud-software56

lunio.ai/blog/the-9-best-click-fraud-detection-tools-ranked49

trafficguard.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-protection-software-protect-your-ppc-campaigns38

lunio.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-detection-tools-for-enterprise-advertisers32

clickpatrol.com/best-click-fraud-protection-software30

improvado.io/blog/best-ad-fraud-detection-software27

clickguardian.ai/blog/best-click-fraud-protection25

thecmo.com/tools/best-click-fraud-software22

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

trafficguard.ai ranks 3 on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, TrafficGuard takes 2% of first choices and ClickCease takes 36%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “click fraud protection tool”

Position for “best click fraud protection tool”

Searches for its name, Google: 720 a month (“trafficguard”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 8 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 1,152 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 307 · 25 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 2,555
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

34 ads · 18 image, 8 text, 8 video · 18 shown in the last 30 days

First shown April 2026, as TrafficGuard Pty Ltd, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 34 in the year.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 9 of 52 in click fraud protection

Segment leader

36%

ClickCease

First choices: 3 across its categories
Named in: 85 answers
Its own site cited: in 84 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 trafficguard.ai

815

subdomains included

Content

610

counted in the table below

Documentation

148

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
News or press	265	9	2026-09-23
Blog	174	2	2026-08-05	Mobile apps
Podcast or video	86	2	2026-09-03	Mobile apps
Report or ebook	40	3	2026-08-28
Case study	21	1	2026-09-07
Comparison	12	0	2026-03-16
Glossary or explainer	7	0	2026-04-13
Conference or event	3	0	2024-04-02
Template or tool	2	0	2024-06-17

Most recent

2026-09-23Martech interview with mathew ratty ceo of trafficguard news or press
2026-09-2250 billion was wagered were ads buying customers twice news or press
2026-09-21Gaming1 says trafficguard cuts wasted google ads spend lifts conversions news or press
2026-09-07How lottomart unlocked a six figure acquisition budget with click fraud protection case study
2026-09-03Trafficguard for social podcast or video
2026-08-28Why machine learning is the future of ad fraud prevention report or ebook

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page trafficguard.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.

Follow TrafficGuard

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

TrafficGuard is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Click Fraud Protection & Prevention for Advertisers
trafficguard.ai
For: Advertisers
trafficguard.ai
Price stated: Pricing trafficguard.ai
Starting price: 49 trafficguard.ai/pricing
Free plan or trial: Free trial trafficguard.ai
Certifications: verified Google partner
Customers named: William HillNow FinanceAlisonIncomeMajor Airline
Not stated on the pages read: Integrations, hosting

What TrafficGuard's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: trafficguard.ai, trafficguard.ai/pricing, trafficguard.ai/security. 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 TrafficGuard'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 TrafficGuard, 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 TrafficGuard by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where TrafficGuard 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 TrafficGuard, 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.