Small businessnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 55 of 107, unchanged
1 category · Named, not rankedRiskWatch
9Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
6 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, 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. RiskWatch was named 7 times in Internal controls, where FloQast led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business61 of 111
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Mid-market27 of 90
0%7 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise51 of 64
0%1 label
under the label threshold
In internal controls · 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 RiskWatch 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls and SOX | Tax and compliance | 0% | 27 of 90 | 0% | 7 | under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 25% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, RiskWatch held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Internal controls · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 27 of 88, unchanged
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 21 → 44 of 58
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 27 of 90, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 10 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated RiskWatch across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated RiskWatch 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative2 labelsNone
Budget-constrained4 labelsNone
Scale-constrained3 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative9 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.
“a quick-start, assessment-focused tool with 40+ pre-mapped frameworks” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Internal controls · comparative prompt · alternative
“such as IBM OpenPages Cloud Pak and RiskWatch” Llama 4 Maverick · Internal controls · 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.
No model argued against it.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RiskWatch, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RiskWatch was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as RiskWatch, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and RiskWatch was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
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 RiskWatch. 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 9 of the 9 answers that named RiskWatch and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
riskwatch.comYour site9
riskpublishing.com7
itechguides.com5
complies.ai4
mitti.com4
checkthat.ai3
erpresearch.com3
smartsuite.com3
supervizor.com3
v-comply.com3
Thirty-five of the forty-four domain citations in answers naming RiskWatch came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
riskwatch.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RiskWatch takes 0% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
riskwatch.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, RiskWatch takes 0% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “internal controls tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “sox compliance software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 170 a month (“riskwatch”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,254 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,503 · 20 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 875
- 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 editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 27 of 90 in internal controls
Segment leader
25%
FloQast
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 9 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 9 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on riskwatch.com
555
subdomains included
Content
381
counted in the table below
Documentation
68
Product · Integration
1 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 297 | 0 | 2026-06-09 | ||
| Template or tool | 29 | 0 | 2026-05-10 | ||
| Comparison | 25 | 1 | 2026-07-19 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 21 | 0 | 2026-06-11 | ||
| Case study | 6 | 0 | 2026-05-14 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 3 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-07-19Qualitative vs quantitative risk assessment comparison
- 2026-06-11Circadian risk alternatives comparison
- 2026-06-11Easyset alternatives comparison
- 2026-06-11RiskWatch vs Archer & MetricStream (2026) comparison
- 2026-06-11Riskwatch vs diligent actimize comparison
- 2026-06-11RiskWatch vs Drata: Honest Comparison (2026) comparison
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page riskwatch.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 September 29, 2026.
Follow RiskWatch
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
RiskWatch is its own company.ShowHide
The company
RiskWatch is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- GRC software for mid-market and enterprise teams.
- For
- mid-market and enterprise teams
- Price stated
- $99 per month, no per-framework upcharge riskwatch.com
- Starting price
- $99 per month riskwatch.com
- Free plan or trial
- 7-day free trial riskwatch.com
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type IIISO/IEC 27001:2022HIPAA-alignedGDPR-aligned
- Hosting
- US East (us-east-1, N. Virginia)EU Frankfurt (eu-central-1)
- Customers named
- AonBoseCoca-ColaIberdrolaJ&JPfizerPumaSeaWorld
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations
What RiskWatch's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: riskwatch.com, riskwatch.com/security, riskwatch.com/solutions, riskwatch.com/customers. 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 RiskWatch'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 RiskWatch, 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 RiskWatch by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where RiskWatch 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 RiskWatch, 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.