Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
CyCognito vs Detectify
Two of fourteen models named CyCognito first on the direct prompt; zero named Detectify. CyCognito was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Detectify by nine and CyCognito carries 39 labels and Detectify 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories 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 rate26%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3920A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, CyCognito 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 CyCognito · Intruder vs Detectify · Attaxion vs CyCognito
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.
CyCognitoFirst choices, of fourteen modelsDetectify
Direct203 against CyCognito
Paraphrase011 against CyCognito · 1 against Detectify
Comparative20
Budget-constrained003 against CyCognito
Scale-constrained11
Negative003 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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, CyCognito and Detectify were named in the same answer twenty-nine times, of the 106 answers naming CyCognito and the 92 naming Detectify. In those answers Detectify took the first choice four times and CyCognito two.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where CyCognito 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 4.1 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 | | |
CyCognito Detectify first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CyCognito on the left and Detectify on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CyCognito and Detectify stood in it.
CyCognito first, Detectify not the choice
2 of 14 modelsDetectify 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
6 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
Gemini 3.5 FlashIntruder alternatives: Detectify, UpGuard BreachSight, runZero
Mistral SmallIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Detectify
DeepSeek V4 FlashIntruder alternatives: Censys ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Surface, CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, UpGuard BreachSight
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Perplexity SonarIntruder alternatives: Cortex Xpanse, Mandiant Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, Rapid7 Surface Command
Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Qualys
Qwen 3.7 FlashIntruder alternatives: Rapid7
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, Rapid7 Surface Command
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Attaxion, Halo 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
Detectify leads by five points.
Detectify7%#3 of 13CyCognito2%#12 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: CyCognito leads at mid-market.
CyCognito6%#4 of 12Detectify4%#6 of 12Enterprise
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
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 CyCognitoIntruder vs DetectifyAttaxion vs CyCognitoAttaxion vs DetectifyMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs CyCognitoMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs DetectifyCyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceUpGuard BreachSight vs DetectifyDetectify vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementDetectify 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.