Index › Security operations › ASM › Attaxion vs Detectify

Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition

Attaxion vs Detectify

Zero of fourteen models named Attaxion first on the direct prompt; zero named Detectify. Attaxion was named by ten of the fourteen models and Detectify by nine and Attaxion carries 16 labels and Detectify 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Attaxion

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

Detectify

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share14%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate6%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.

Labels1620A 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 Detectify · 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 modelsDetectify

Direct00

Paraphrase011 against Detectify

Comparative00

Budget-constrained70

Scale-constrained01

Negative001 against Attaxion

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, Attaxion and Detectify were named in the same answer twenty-four times, of the 46 answers naming Attaxion and the 92 naming Detectify. In those answers Detectify took the first choice two times and Attaxion twelve.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Attaxion and Detectify 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 4.20
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

Detectify

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Attaxion on the left and Detectify on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Attaxion and Detectify stood in it.

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.

Gemini 3.5 FlashIntruder alternatives: Detectify, UpGuard BreachSight, runZero

Mistral SmallIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Detectify

Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight

Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Attaxion, Halo Security

Neither was named

10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5CyCognito alternatives: Hadrian, Halo Security, Intruder

GPT-5.4 miniUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, Tenable Attack Surface Management

Perplexity SonarIntruder alternatives: Cortex Xpanse, Mandiant Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight

Grok 4.20Intruder alternatives: Bitsight, Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, Rapid7 Surface Command

DeepSeek V4 FlashIntruder alternatives: Censys ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Surface, CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management

Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Qualys

Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Rapid7

GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, UpGuard BreachSight

MiniMax M2.5CyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Mandiant Attack Surface Management

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 twelve points.

Attaxion#2 of 13

Detectify#3 of 13

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Attaxion leads by ten points.

Attaxion#2 of 12

Detectify#6 of 12

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Attaxion#– of 9

Detectify#– of 9

The full enterprise standing →

What 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 Detectify

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.

“Per-domain pricing; can get expensive as you scale” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Detectify or Intruder: Excellent EASM tools geared towards SMBs and mid-market teams... low management overhead.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

“Intruder or Detectify are the most commonly recommended mid-market-first EASM platforms” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Detectify is a Swedish EASM platform primarily geared toward small and medium-sized businesses” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · alternative

Also compared

Intruder vs Attaxion Intruder vs Detectify Attaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management Attaxion vs CyCognito Attaxion vs UpGuard BreachSight Attaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface Management Attaxion vs CrowdStrike Falcon Surface Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Detectify CyCognito vs Detectify UpGuard BreachSight vs Detectify Detectify vs Tenable Attack Surface Management Detectify vs CrowdStrike Falcon Surface All 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.