The short version
- The security market is crowded and committee-driven: Momentum Cyber’s market map, as cited by Expert Insights (opens in a new tab), tracks more than 1,500 cybersecurity companies, and ActualTech Media found decision committees of 11 or more people 60% of the time at companies with more than 5,000 employees. No public study yet measures how many CISOs use a chatbot to narrow that field.
- Security buyers distrust what vendors tell them: in a Sophos-commissioned survey of 5,000 IT and security leaders, only 5% fully trusted their security vendors and 79% found new vendors hard to assess.
- The same survey ranked verifiable evidence, such as certifications, third-party assessments and a public trust center, as the top driver of trust in a security vendor.
- For US software questions, AI search drew 72.7% of its sources from independent “earned” sites, against 45.4% for Google, according to Chen and colleagues (opens in a new tab).
- The prize is large but slow to win: Gartner (opens in a new tab) forecasts $121,154 million of security software spending in 2026, and most security purchases run on a 6–12-month cycle.
Who buys cybersecurity software, and what is a customer worth?
A security-led committee buys it slowly and carefully, and a won enterprise customer is worth a lot.
Security spending is big and still rising. Gartner forecasts worldwide end-user spending on information security of $213 billion in 2025, rising 12.5% to $240 billion in 2026. Security software is the largest slice and, Gartner says, the fastest growing one: from $105,940 million in 2025 to $121,154 million in 2026.
Each buyer’s budget is tighter than those totals suggest. IANS Research and Artico Search (opens in a new tab), surveying 587 CISOs, found average security budget growth slowed to 4% in 2025, down from 8% in 2024. A new vendor is usually asking for money that was planned for something else.
The buying group is large, and it is not only the CISO:
- Forrester’s 2026 study of business buying (opens in a new tab) found the typical decision involves 13 internal stakeholders and nine external influencers, and procurement staff are decision-makers in 53% of buying cycles.
- When a purchase includes generative AI features, which most security products now claim, Forrester found the buying group doubles (opens in a new tab), from seven members to 14.
- In ActualTech Media’s survey (opens in a new tab) of 327 US security professionals, run in late 2023, most prospects were on a 6–12-month purchase cycle. In companies with more than 5,000 employees, the decision committee had 11 or more people 60% of the time.
- In the Sophos survey, only 1% of organizations said senior leadership plays no role in security purchases.
A listed security vendor’s results show what one enterprise logo can be worth. SentinelOne (opens in a new tab) reported 1,667 customers paying $100,000 or more a year as of January 31, 2026, within $1,119.1 million of annualized recurring revenue. Subscription contracts like these are built to renew, so one enterprise win can pay out for years.
The buyer’s stakes are high too, which explains the caution. IBM’s 2025 breach report (opens in a new tab) put the average cost of a US data breach at a record $10.22 million, against $4.44 million worldwide. A CISO who picks the wrong tool carries that risk personally.
How early do AI assistants enter a security purchase?
At the start of research and, increasingly, at the shortlist, though no public study isolates security buyers alone.
The best recent evidence covers B2B software in general. In March 2026, G2 (opens in a new tab), which runs a software review platform, surveyed 1,076 software buyers: 51% started research with an AI chatbot more often than with Google, up from 29% in G2’s 2025 report. 71% relied on AI chatbots at some point, and 41% used Deep Research tools for structured software evaluations.
In G2’s 2025 survey (opens in a new tab) of 1,100 decision-makers, AI chatbots were already the source that most influenced vendor shortlists:
| Source that most influenced the shortlist | Share of buyers |
|---|---|
| Generative AI chatbots | 17.1% |
| Software review sites | 15.1% |
| Vendor websites | 12.8% |
| Market research firms | 10.6% |
Enterprise buyers, at companies with 1,000 to 5,000 employees, named review sites (56%) and AI search (55%) as their top two research sources. That pairing matters for security, where peer validation has always carried weight.
Two cautions. G2 runs a software review marketplace and sells vendors visibility on it, so it has an interest in these findings. And Forrester reports that answer engines “often deliver incomplete or unreliable information, creating mistrust,” so buyers check AI answers against trusted sources. In security, that checking step is where deals are decided.
The market also gives buyers good reason to ask a machine for help. Expert Insights (opens in a new tab) notes that Momentum Cyber’s market map tracks more than 1,500 cybersecurity companies. Narrowing that field to a handful is exactly the job buyers now hand to assistants, we infer. Zero trust access is one such field, covered in how network security vendors win zero trust buyers.
What do CISOs and security architects ask AI assistants?
Questions about categories, alternatives, head-to-head comparisons, compliance and proof. We wrote the security prompts in this table ourselves to illustrate the stages; none was captured from a real buyer.
| Buying stage | Illustrative prompt |
|---|---|
| Category | “What are the best endpoint detection and response platforms for a mid-sized hospital network?” |
| Alternatives | “What are the main alternatives to CrowdStrike Falcon for a manufacturer with a small security team?” |
| Comparison | “SentinelOne or Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for a company already on Microsoft 365?” |
| Compliance | “Which SIEM vendors are FedRAMP authorized?” or “Which data loss prevention tools help with HIPAA audits?” |
| Proof | “How did these vendors do in the latest MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations?” |
| Due diligence | “Has this vendor had a breach, and how did it handle disclosure?” |
| Fit | “Does this tool integrate with Splunk and ServiceNow?” |
A single security question can trigger a batch of web searches behind the scenes. Google documents that AI Overviews and AI Mode may use a “query fan-out” technique (opens in a new tab), “issuing multiple related searches across subtopics and data sources.” OpenAI documents that ChatGPT search rewrites a question (opens in a new tab) into one or more targeted queries that it sends to search partners.
Our own research shows which kinds of pages ChatGPT goes looking for in those searches. In our hidden-searches study of 80 buyer questions across eight industries, ChatGPT searched for reviews in 46.2% of its answers and for a named publication, ranking or award in 43.8%. In security, we infer, those named sources would include analyst reports, independent test results and peer-review platforms. Endpoint vendors lean on such results, as our guide to how EDR vendors win enterprise deals explains.
How does a mention in an AI answer become a security contract?
Via the shortlist: a named security vendor gets evaluated, and evaluation leads to a proof of concept, then a contract.
The path, as we understand it from the evidence above, has five steps:
- A CISO, architect or IT lead asks an assistant a category, alternatives or compliance question.
- The assistant replies with a few security vendors and links to a handful of supporting pages.
- The buyer checks those vendors against evidence: review sites, certifications, test results, peers.
- The vendors that survive are invited into a request for proposal or a proof of concept.
- One wins a multi-year contract that renews and expands.
The surveys suggest the AI answer weighs heavily at step 2. In G2’s 2026 data, 85% of buyers thought more highly of a vendor when AI included it in an answer, and 69% chose a different vendor than they had planned because it was part of a chatbot’s recommendation. Step 3 is where security differs from other software: the buyer and the board want proof, not claims.
A CISO who first met you in ChatGPT seldom arrives through a link your analytics can trace. A buyer who met you in an AI answer may arrive months later through a reseller, a peer introduction or a direct demo request. That makes attribution hard, a problem we cover in what lost clicks mean for pipeline and how to prove GEO caused sales.
Why does an assistant name one security vendor and not another?
The platforms do not say; studies point to independent sources, and security buyers reward proof they can check.
What the platforms disclose. Google and OpenAI say their AI answers search the web and link to the pages they draw on. Neither explains how it picks the security products it recommends.
What researchers have measured. In the analysis of US software questions by Chen and colleagues (opens in a new tab), AI search drew 72.7% of its sources from earned sites such as reviews and independent publications, against 45.4% for Google, which leaned more on vendor-owned pages. That matters for due-diligence questions: our reputation study found 88.0% of answers to “Is this brand legit?” cited a review or complaint platform. In our Reddit study, r/cybersecurity was among the communities Google’s AI cited most.
B2B software is also where assistants agree most. In our four-assistant study, the overlap between two assistants’ recommendations was highest for B2B software, at 0.543 on a scale from 0 to 1, against 0.227 for home and local services. Agreement is still far from complete.
What security buyers trust. The Sophos survey, run by the research firm Vanson Bourne, ranked what most raises trust in a security vendor:
| Rank for boards | Rank for security teams | Driver of trust |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Verifiable evidence: bug bounty, trust center, advisories, third-party assessments, certifications |
| 2 | 3 | Transparent, timely communication during incidents |
| 3 | 4 | Expert commentary after major incidents |
| 5 | 5 | Performance in analyst reports |
| 7 | 7 | Performance in independent tests such as MITRE or SE Labs |
The barriers were about information: 47% said vendor information was not factual or detailed enough, 41% met conflicting information, and 38% struggled to find what they needed. Sophos is itself a security vendor, so treat the survey as one input.
Our inference. The evidence a CISO uses to verify a vendor is mostly public: certifications, test results, advisories, reviews, analyst mentions. An assistant can reach the same pages, provided they are not locked behind a form. So a security vendor that keeps its proof public, current and consistent should, we expect, give the CISO and the assistant more to go on. Nobody has tested that expectation on security vendors yet.
What is at stake for a security vendor that assistants skip?
Mostly places in RFPs and proofs of concept, not clicks; no study has priced that loss in dollars.
- The first list is hard to join later. If AI answers shape the shortlist, a vendor left out may never be evaluated. G2 puts it bluntly: if AI leaves you out, “the buyer may not even know you exist.” G2 is not neutral on this point.
- Long cycles raise the price of a miss. With most purchases on a 6–12-month cycle and budgets set annually, missing one evaluation can mean waiting until the winner’s contract comes up for renewal, we infer. A SIEM migration is one such window, covered in how SIEM vendors reach enterprise shortlists.
- Shortlist presence flickers. Across five runs of the same question in our consistency study, just 25.2% of the brands ChatGPT named showed up every time. A security vendor that appears in some runs and not others drops out of evaluations without ever learning they happened.
- Distrust drives switching. In the Sophos survey, 45% said a lack of trust makes them more likely to switch vendors. An AI answer that describes your product vaguely or wrongly is, we infer, a renewal risk as well as a pipeline one.
How does GEO work for a cybersecurity software company?
It makes your proof easy for AI assistants to find, read and repeat, in the sources they already use. It cannot make any assistant recommend a particular security product.
- One clear identity. Describe what you protect, for whom, and how it deploys, the same way on your site, review profiles, analyst briefings and company databases. Inconsistent descriptions confuse buyers and assistants alike; see how to fix wrong brand information in AI answers.
- A public, readable trust center. Put certifications such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001, FedRAMP status, vulnerability advisories and incident history on plain web pages, not only in gated PDFs. That answers the 38% of buyers who could not find what they needed.
- Independent validation and coverage. Take part in independent tests, brief analysts, and publish threat research that security journalists cite. Boards ranked expert commentary after major incidents third among trust drivers; this is where digital PR earns its keep. Our guide on building authority for AI search covers that PR work in more depth.
- Reviews and peer communities. Encourage detailed customer reviews on platforms buyers use, and take part honestly in practitioner communities. Fake reviews and planted posts are a risk, as we explain in legitimate GEO versus manipulation.
- Content for real buyer questions. Publish honest comparison and alternatives pages, compliance mapping pages, integration pages and deployment detail. Ranked lists on other sites matter more than your own pages, as we show in which pages to target and whether comparison pages help.
- Tracking that mirrors how CISOs search. Put the same security questions to ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot and Claude, several times each; see how many prompts to track.
Which gaps remain in the evidence on AI and security purchases?
Whether being named by assistants wins security contracts: nobody has published a study of that link.
- No public, vendor-neutral study of CISOs’ AI use. Figures circulate online about how many security leaders use AI assistants, some attributed to analyst firms, but we could not trace them to a public source, so we do not use them.
- The surveys have interests and limits. G2’s data cover all B2B software and G2 sells review visibility. Sophos sells security products. ActualTech Media’s cycle data predate the latest shift to AI search.
- Revenue effects have the thinnest support. When Martinez (opens in a new tab) reviewed 45 studies of AI search optimization, traffic and conversions had the least evidence behind them, a gap we discuss in does AI visibility drive business results.
- Selection is a black box. Outside the platforms, nobody knows exactly how assistants pick vendors, and answers change between runs and between assistants.
How can a security vendor see whether AI answers are feeding its RFPs?
Check which vendors assistants name for the questions CISOs ask before an RFP, then fix the proof gaps.
List the questions your buyers ask at each stage: category, alternatives, comparisons, compliance and due diligence. Put each one to every major assistant more than once, since security answers shift between runs. Note which vendors appear, which pages are cited, and how your certifications, test results and incident history are described. In security, what is missing is usually outside proof such as test results or certifications, not more blog posts.
To have that check run against your enterprise pipeline, ask us for a security shortlist review. It shows which CISO questions name you, which name rivals instead, and which missing public proof most likely costs you proofs of concept and renewals. Closing those gaps, from an ungated trust center to independent test results and analyst coverage, is the work our generative engine optimization service page sets out.
Frequently asked questions
Do CISOs really use ChatGPT to research security vendors?
Software buyers in general increasingly do, as the G2 survey described above shows. No public study isolates CISOs, so their share is unknown.
Will a Gartner Magic Quadrant spot get a security vendor named by ChatGPT?
Plausibly, but untested. Boards and security teams ranked analyst reports fifth among trust drivers, and ChatGPT searched for named rankings in 43.8% of answers in our study.
Should we ungate our trust center and technical documents?
Usually yes, for the facts buyers verify. 38% of IT and security leaders in the Sophos survey struggled to find the vendor information they needed.
Are “alternatives to” pages worth writing for security buyers?
Yes, if honest and specific, but expect third-party sources to carry more weight: AI search drew 72.7% of US software sources from earned sites.
How many quarters before GEO work reaches a signed security contract?
Expect it to be slow. Most security purchases run on 6–12-month cycles, so a new shortlist place may take quarters to become signed revenue.
Sources
- G2, Tim Sanders (2026-04-15), In the Answer Economy, Don’t Win the Click — Win the Answer (opens in a new tab)
- G2, Sydney Sloan (2025), Proving Value in the Age of AI: 2025 Buyer Behavior Report highlights (opens in a new tab)
- Sophos and Vanson Bourne (2026-03), The Cybersecurity Trust Reality in 2026
- Gartner, via CRN Asia (2025-07-29), Gartner forecasts worldwide end-user spending on information security to total $213 bn in 2025 (opens in a new tab)
- IANS Research and Artico Search (2025-08-05), 2025 Security Budget Benchmark Report (opens in a new tab)
- Forrester (2026-01-21), Forrester’s 2026 Buyer Insights: GenAI Is Upending B2B Buying (opens in a new tab)
- Forrester (2026-01), The State Of Business Buying: Risk-Averse Buyers Demand Proof, Not Promises (opens in a new tab)
- ActualTech Media (2024-01-10), Cybersecurity Buyers Report Part 3 (opens in a new tab)
- SentinelOne, via 01net (2026-03-12), SentinelOne Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2026 Financial Results (opens in a new tab)
- IBM (2025-07-30), IBM Report: 13% of Organizations Reported Breaches of AI Models or Applications (opens in a new tab)
- Expert Insights, Mirren McDade (2026-08-11), Senior CISOs On How They Make Their Security Investments (opens in a new tab)
- Google Search Central (2025), AI features and your website (opens in a new tab)
- OpenAI Help Center (2025), ChatGPT search (opens in a new tab)
- Chen, Wang, Chen and Koudas (2025), Generative Engine Optimization: How to Dominate AI Search (opens in a new tab), arXiv:2509.08919.
- Martinez (2026), Optimizing Visibility in Generative Engines: A Critical Survey of Generative Engine Optimization (2023-2026) (opens in a new tab), arXiv:2607.14035.
- Underneath (2026), The hidden searches AI assistants run before they answer
- Underneath (2026), “Is this brand legit?” How AI assistants build a reputation
- Underneath (2026), When does a Reddit thread become evidence in Google’s AI?
- Underneath (2026), Do ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Claude agree on brands?
- Underneath (2026), Ask an AI the same question 5 times: do the brands change?