API security platforms · October 2026 Edition
Noname Security vs StackHawk
Two of fourteen models named Noname Security first on the direct prompt; zero named StackHawk. Noname Security was named by eleven of the fourteen models and StackHawk by twelve and Noname Security carries 14 labels and StackHawk 19, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Noname Security
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate43%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#7#8A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels1419A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Noname Security reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Salt Security was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Wallarm API Security vs Noname Security · Wallarm API Security vs StackHawk · OWASP ZAP vs Noname Security
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 API security platforms page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Noname SecurityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsStackHawk
Direct20
Paraphrase10
Comparative001 against Noname Security
Budget-constrained021 against StackHawk
Scale-constrained00
Negative005 against Noname Security
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Noname Security and StackHawk stood in it.
| Model | DirectNS | ParaphraseNS | ComparativeNS | Budget-constrainedNS | Scale-constrainedNS | NegativeNS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | NS | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | NS | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | NS | | | |||
| Mistral Small | | NS | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | NS | NS | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | NS | NS | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | NS | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | NS | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | NS | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | |
NS Noname Security StackHawkNS first choiceNS named as an alternativeNS argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Noname Security on the left and StackHawk on the right.
StackHawkNS first choiceNS named as an alternativeNS argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Noname Security on the left and StackHawk on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Noname Security and StackHawk stood in it.
Noname Security first, StackHawk an alternative
2 of 14 modelsStackHawk was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashNoname Security alternatives: APIsec, Postman, Traceable, Wallarm API Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashNoname Security alternatives: 42Crunch, StackHawk, Wallarm API Security
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.Gemini 3.5 FlashWallarm API Security alternatives: Cloudflare API Shield, Harness WAAP, Salt Security, StackHawk
Grok 4.1 FastSalt Security alternatives: Akamai API Security, Cequence Unified API Protection, Noname Security, Traceable AI
MiniMax M2.5Auth0 alternatives: Cloudflare API Shield, Imperva API Security, Noname Security, Salt Security
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Salt Security alternatives: 42Crunch, Wallarm API Security
GPT-5.4 miniAkamai API Security alternatives: Akto, Imperva API Security, Traceable API Security Platform
Perplexity SonarAikido Security alternatives: Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Mistral SmallAikido Security, Data Theorem API Security alternatives: Imperva API Security, Traceable AI, Wallarm API Security
Llama 4 MaverickAikido Security alternatives: AWS API Gateway with AWS Shield, Salt Security
Kimi K2Data Theorem, Traceable AI alternatives: APIsec, Beagle Security, Imperva API Security
GLM 4.7 FlashXZuplo alternatives: Apigee, Kong Gateway, Salt Security, Traceable AI
GPT-6 LunaWallarm API Security alternatives: 42Crunch, Salt Security
Muse Glimmer 30BCheck Point CloudGuard WAF, Traceable AI alternatives: Akamai API Security, Cequence Unified API Protection, Noname, Salt Security, Treblle
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
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
StackHawk leads by eleven points.
StackHawk11%#2 of 14Noname Security0%#– of 14
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Noname Security leads at mid-market.
Noname Security6%#7 of 13
StackHawk4%#8 of 13Enterprise
Noname Security leads by two points.
Noname Security2%#7 of 12
StackHawk0%#– of 12What the models said about Noname Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Criticized for long setup times, limited remediation guidance... Some experts consider it less effective compared to newer agentless approaches” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“This is the most frequently criticized major vendor in the space.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Post-acquisition integration still in progress; some pre-acquisition roadmap features delayed; product now bundled with Akamai's broader portfolio” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies, I'd recommend starting with Noname (Akamai API Security)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“For pure API Security & Visibility: Go with Noname Security.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“this is the market leader for mid-to-large organizations” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about StackHawk
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“If you outgrow them, scale to affordable paid like StackHawk.” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · soft negative
“Best Overall Value (Automated Testing): StackHawk ... widely considered the best balance of cost and capability for startups and SMBs” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“StackHawk - a developer-centric CI/CD DAST on a budget, with a free tier and paid plans starting at $59/mo.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Wallarm API Security vs Noname SecurityWallarm API Security vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Noname SecurityOWASP ZAP vs StackHawk42Crunch vs Noname Security42Crunch vs StackHawkSalt Security vs Noname SecuritySalt Security vs StackHawkAkamai API Security vs Noname SecurityAkamai API Security vs StackHawkTraceable AI vs Noname SecurityTraceable AI vs StackHawkAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full API security standing
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.