Aembit vs Token Security
One of fourteen models named Aembit first on the direct prompt; two named Token Security. Aembit was named by nine of the fourteen models and Token Security by six and Aembit carries 16 labels and Token Security 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named 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 non-human identity management page.
By framing
AembitFirst choices, of fourteen modelsToken Security
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Aembit and Token Security were named in the same answer eleven times, of the 51 answers naming Aembit and the 31 naming Token Security. In those answers Token Security took the first choice two times and Aembit two.
Every model, every framing
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | |||||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
Aembit Token Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Aembit on the left and Token Security on the right.The direct prompt
Aembit first, Token Security not the choice
1 of 14 modelsToken Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Token Security first, Aembit an alternative
2 of 14 modelsAembit was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
6 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
Aembit10%#2 of 17Token Security0%#14 of 17Aembit5%#7 of 16Token Security5%#8 of 16What the models said about Aembit
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Newer, smaller market share” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · soft negative
“Aembit stands out as the best pure-play non-human identity management platform” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“Aembit is my pick for low-cost managed workload access” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“Secretless workload-to-workload access—replacing static credentials rather than just cataloging them | Aembit” GPT-6 Luna · direct prompt · alternative
What the models said about Token Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Token Security | ~$50K–$100K/yr starter packages” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Oasis Security, Token Security, and Clutch are highlighted as more purpose-built for NHI management, so they may be safer choices” Mistral Small · negative prompt · first choice
“Go with Token Security — it's purpose-built, independent, and scales well for mid-tier orgs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“My default pick: Token Security” GPT-6 Luna · direct prompt · first choice
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.