Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 16 → 89 of 107
1 category · Named, not rankedZenGRC
5Judge labels
2First choices
1Negative labels
4 / 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
2 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ZenGRC was named 2 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 business83 of 111
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market17 of 90
2%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise18 of 64
2%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 ZenGRC 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 | 2% | 17 of 90 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by FloQast at 25% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ZenGRC held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Internal controls · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 35 → 17 of 88
Enterprise▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 29 → 16 of 58
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 35 → 17 of 90 |
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 ZenGRC 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 ZenGRC 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase2 labels1
Comparative1 labelNone
Budget-constrained2 labels1
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.
“Top Recommendation: ZenGRC (by RiskOptics)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“True mid-market GRC platform (200\u20132,000 employees)” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · 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 ZenGRC, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ZenGRC was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ZenGRC, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ZenGRC 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 ZenGRC. 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 5 of the 5 answers that named ZenGRC and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
g2.com4
riskpublishing.com4
zengrc.comYour site4
mitti.com3
smartsuite.com3
v-comply.com3
apono.io2
checkthat.ai2
complianceofficer.ai2
highradius.com2
Twenty-five of the twenty-nine domain citations in answers naming ZenGRC came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
zengrc.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ZenGRC takes 2% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
zengrc.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ZenGRC takes 2% 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
- 480 a month (“zengrc”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 4 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 29,603 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 7,587 · 519 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,305
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 17 of 90 in internal controls
Segment leader
25%
FloQast
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 5 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 5 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 zengrc.com
647
subdomains included
Content
420
counted in the table below
Documentation
104
Product · Integration
31 · 2
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 299 | 4 | 2026-09-15 | ||
| Comparison | 43 | 11 | 2026-09-09 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 25 | 0 | 2026-04-28 | ||
| Template or tool | 18 | 0 | 2026-06-16 | ||
| Report or ebook | 12 | 0 | 2026-04-27 | ||
| News or press | 7 | 0 | 2026-02-24 | ||
| Case study | 6 | 0 | 2023-01-05 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 5 | 0 | 2022-03-18 | ||
| Conference or event | 4 | 1 | 2026-08-12 | ||
| Podcast or video | 1 | 0 | 2022-02-02 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-15Grc setup days not weeks blog
- 2026-09-09Zengrc pricing how it actually works blog
- 2026-09-09Zengrc vs archer comparison
- 2026-09-09Vanta review comparison
- 2026-09-01The real cost of recurring evidence collection done wrong blog
- 2026-08-31Onspring alternative comparison
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page zengrc.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 ZenGRC
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
ZenGRC is its own company.ShowHide
The company
ZenGRC is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- GRC software for multi-framework compliance; a unified, flexible, full-featured GRC platform using agentic AI to power compliance, risk, and audit programs
- For
- organizations managing compliance, risk, audit, third-party risk management, and vendor management
- Price stated
- simple, flat-fee pricing; straightforward, all-inclusive price without hidden costs zengrc.com
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type II Trust Services CriteriaISO 27001:2022
- Not stated on the pages read
- Starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, hosting, customers
What ZenGRC's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: zengrc.com, trust.zengrc.com, zengrc.com/product, zengrc.com/partners. 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 ZenGRC'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 ZenGRC, 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 ZenGRC by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ZenGRC 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 ZenGRC, 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.