Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
Attaxion vs CyCognito
Zero of fourteen models named Attaxion first on the direct prompt; two named CyCognito. Attaxion was named by ten of the fourteen models and CyCognito by fourteen and Attaxion carries 16 labels and CyCognito 39, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share14%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate6%26%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#4A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels1639A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Attaxion reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Intruder was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Intruder vs Attaxion · Intruder vs CyCognito · Attaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
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 attack surface management page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AttaxionFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCyCognito
Direct023 against CyCognito
Paraphrase001 against CyCognito
Comparative02
Budget-constrained703 against CyCognito
Scale-constrained01
Negative001 against Attaxion · 3 against CyCognito
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 Attaxion and CyCognito 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 | | |
Attaxion CyCognito first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Attaxion on the left and CyCognito on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Attaxion and CyCognito stood in it.
CyCognito first, Attaxion not the choice
2 of 14 modelsAttaxion was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5CyCognito alternatives: Hadrian, Halo Security, Intruder
MiniMax M2.5CyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Mandiant Attack Surface Management
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, Tenable Attack Surface Management
DeepSeek V4 FlashIntruder alternatives: Censys ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Surface, CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, UpGuard BreachSight
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Attaxion, Halo Security
Neither was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Gemini 3.5 FlashIntruder alternatives: Detectify, UpGuard BreachSight, runZero
Perplexity SonarIntruder alternatives: Cortex Xpanse, Mandiant Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, Rapid7 Surface Command
Mistral SmallIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Detectify
Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Qualys
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Rapid7
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, Rapid7 Surface Command
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
Attaxion leads by seventeen points.
Attaxion19%#2 of 13CyCognito2%#12 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: CyCognito leads at enterprise.
CyCognito7%#3 of 9Attaxion0%#– of 9What the models said about Attaxion
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“cited as a capable but "quite young" platform that hasn't yet amassed a deep track record” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“For a limited budget, Attaxion is the strongest single pick from the results because it is described as the most affordable platform” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
“If you want the most affordable full-featured continuous platform, Attaxion is the one most reviewers highlight for budget-conscious teams” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“Attaxion stands out as the best budget-friendly attack surface management (ASM) platform for companies with limited resources” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about CyCognito
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Also flagged as a criticized challenger (39% negative labels)” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Strong for automated discovery, but the search results point more toward complex environments than a typical mid-market default.” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · soft negative
“you do not need to pay for five-figure, enterprise-grade platforms like Palo Alto Cortex Xpanse or CyCognito” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Validation separates the best. Platforms like CyCognito and Synack actively test whether exposures are truly exploitable” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest starting evaluations with CyCognito (if you want comprehensive discovery and have the budget)” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Highly praised for autonomous discovery... Leaders like CyCognito stand out for validation beyond detection” Grok 4.1 Fast · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Intruder vs AttaxionIntruder vs CyCognitoAttaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs UpGuard BreachSightAttaxion vs DetectifyAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs CyCognitoCyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs DetectifyCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full ASM 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.