# Noname Security vs StackHawk: which do AI models recommend for API security, October 2026

IT AI Recommendation Index, October 2026 Edition, API security platforms. Two of fourteen models named Noname Security first on the direct prompt; zero named StackHawk. Page: https://it-ai-index.com/security/api-security-platforms/noname-security-vs-stackhawk/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noname Security | 6% | #7 of 13 | 43% | 14 | 11 of 14 |
| StackHawk | 4% | #8 of 13 | 5% | 19 | 12 of 14 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- DeepSeek V4 Flash: noname security first (first choices: Noname Security) (alternatives: APIsec, Postman, Traceable, Wallarm API Security)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: noname security first (first choices: Noname Security) (alternatives: 42Crunch, StackHawk, Wallarm API Security)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Wallarm API Security) (alternatives: Cloudflare API Shield, Harness WAAP, Salt Security, StackHawk)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither first, one named (first choices: Salt Security) (alternatives: Akamai API Security, Cequence Unified API Protection, Noname Security, Traceable AI)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Auth0) (alternatives: Cloudflare API Shield, Imperva API Security, Noname Security, Salt Security)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither named (first choices: Salt Security) (alternatives: 42Crunch, Wallarm API Security)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Akamai API Security) (alternatives: Akto, Imperva API Security, Traceable API Security Platform)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither named (first choices: Aikido Security) (alternatives: Check Point CloudGuard WAF)
- Mistral Small: neither named (first choices: Aikido Security, Data Theorem API Security) (alternatives: Imperva API Security, Traceable AI, Wallarm API Security)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named (first choices: Aikido Security) (alternatives: AWS API Gateway with AWS Shield, Salt Security)
- Kimi K2: neither named (first choices: Data Theorem, Traceable AI) (alternatives: APIsec, Beagle Security, Imperva API Security)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: neither named (first choices: Zuplo) (alternatives: Apigee, Kong Gateway, Salt Security, Traceable AI)
- GPT-6 Luna: neither named (first choices: Wallarm API Security) (alternatives: 42Crunch, Salt Security)
- Muse Glimmer 30B: neither named (first choices: Check Point CloudGuard WAF, Traceable AI) (alternatives: Akamai API Security, Cequence Unified API Protection, Noname, Salt Security, Treblle)

## What the models said about Noname Security

- "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

- "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)

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. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.