LIAPP vs AppSealing
Zero of fourteen models named LIAPP first on the direct prompt; zero named AppSealing. LIAPP was named by seven of the fourteen models and AppSealing by eight and both carry 10 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.
LIAPP
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the application shielding page.
By framing
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, LIAPP and AppSealing were named in the same answer three times, of the 22 answers naming LIAPP and the 27 naming AppSealing. In those answers AppSealing took the first choice one time and LIAPP one.
Every model, every framing
| Model | DirectLI | ParaphraseLI | ComparativeLI | Budget-constrainedLI | Scale-constrainedLI | NegativeLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | LI | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | LI | |||||
| Perplexity Sonar | LI | | ||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | |||||
| Mistral Small | ||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | LI | LI | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | LI | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | ||||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | LI | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | LI |
AppSealingLI first choiceLI named as an alternativeLI argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, LIAPP on the left and AppSealing on the right.The direct prompt
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
AppSealing8%#4 of 11AppSealing4%#4 of 7AppSealing0%#– of 8What the models said about LIAPP
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“LIAPP at $39.99 (one-time payment) appears to be the most affordable option that still provides comprehensive protection” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“If you have ~$40 one-time: Go with LIAPP — it's the cheapest commercial option and covers the essentials.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“For the tightest budget, LIAPP offers the best value with its one-time $39.99 payment.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about AppSealing
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Public bypass tutorials and reversal research available (GitHub: "Appsealing-Reversal")” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Go with AppSealing (DoveRunner) — it offers a 30-day free trial, requires no coding ... comprehensive RASP + obfuscation features at a flat, predictable price point.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“subscribe to AppSealing ($129/mo) to quickly wrap your app with robust runtime protections” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“AppSealing is also a strong candidate because it uses pay-as-you-grow pricing and requires no code changes” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · alternative
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.