API security platforms · October 2026 Edition
Salt Security vs StackHawk
Two of fourteen models named Salt Security first on the direct prompt; zero named StackHawk. Salt Security was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and StackHawk by twelve and Salt Security carries 43 labels and StackHawk 19, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share8%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate33%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels4319A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Salt Security reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Wallarm API Security vs Salt Security · Wallarm API Security vs StackHawk · OWASP ZAP vs Salt 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.
Salt SecurityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsStackHawk
Direct202 against Salt Security
Paraphrase203 against Salt Security
Comparative80
Budget-constrained025 against Salt Security · 1 against StackHawk
Scale-constrained00
Negative004 against Salt 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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Salt Security and StackHawk were named in the same answer thirty times, of the 133 answers naming Salt Security and the 147 naming StackHawk. In those answers StackHawk took the first choice six times and Salt Security nine.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Salt Security and StackHawk stood in it.
| 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 | | | | | |
Salt Security StackHawk first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Salt Security on the left and StackHawk on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Salt Security and StackHawk stood in it.
Salt Security first, StackHawk not the choice
2 of 14 modelsStackHawk was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Salt Security alternatives: 42Crunch, Wallarm API Security
Grok 4.1 FastSalt Security alternatives: Akamai API Security, Cequence Unified API Protection, Noname Security, Traceable AI
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 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
Llama 4 MaverickAikido Security alternatives: AWS API Gateway with AWS Shield, Salt Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashNoname Security alternatives: 42Crunch, StackHawk, Wallarm API Security
GLM 4.7 FlashXZuplo alternatives: Apigee, Kong Gateway, Salt Security, Traceable AI
MiniMax M2.5Auth0 alternatives: Cloudflare API Shield, Imperva API Security, Noname Security, Salt Security
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
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
DeepSeek V4 FlashNoname Security alternatives: APIsec, Postman, Traceable, Wallarm API Security
Kimi K2Data Theorem, Traceable AI alternatives: APIsec, Beagle Security, Imperva API Security
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 nine points.
StackHawk11%#2 of 14Salt Security2%#13 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Salt Security leads at mid-market.
Salt Security8%#4 of 13StackHawk4%#8 of 13Enterprise
Salt Security leads by thirty-one points.
Salt Security31%#2 of 12StackHawk0%#– of 12What the models said about Salt 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.
“Another platform frequently mentioned as having significant setup and operational overhead.” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid Salt Security ($100k+/year)” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Salt Security is frequently cited as a category pioneer for AI-powered behavioral threat detection and API discovery... also note typical enterprise caveats: shift-left and SIEM logging integrations are still maturing in places, and smaller teams report sales-led buying and opaque pricing.” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“If you want to stop complex logic abuse (like BOLA) in runtime without adding any latency to your production traffic, select Salt Security or Traceable AI.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“dedicated purpose-built solutions like Salt Security, Traceable AI, Wallarm, Akamai API Security, and Cequence Security” Grok 4.1 Fast · comparative prompt · first choice
“Purpose-built API security platform that combines API discovery, posture governance, and runtime threat detection in a single product.” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative 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 Salt SecurityWallarm API Security vs StackHawkOWASP ZAP vs Salt SecurityOWASP ZAP vs StackHawk42Crunch vs Salt Security42Crunch vs StackHawkSalt Security vs Akamai API SecuritySalt Security vs Traceable AISalt Security vs Noname SecurityAkamai API Security vs StackHawkTraceable AI vs StackHawkNoname Security 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.