Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
Detectify vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Zero of fourteen models named Detectify first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. Detectify was named by nine of the fourteen models and Tenable Attack Surface Management by eight and Detectify carries 20 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels2018A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Detectify 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 Detectify · Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management · Attaxion vs Detectify
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.
DetectifyFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct001 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Paraphrase101 against Detectify
Comparative00
Budget-constrained01
Scale-constrained10
Negative002 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
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 Detectify and Tenable Attack Surface Management 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 | | |
Detectify Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Detectify on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Detectify and Tenable Attack Surface Management 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.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
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
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
Perplexity SonarIntruder alternatives: Cortex Xpanse, Mandiant Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Grok 4.1 FastIntruder 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
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 three points.
Detectify7%#3 of 13Tenable Attack Surface Management3%#9 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Detectify leads by two points.
Detectify4%#6 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#7 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Tenable Attack Surface Management leads at enterprise.
Tenable Attack Surface Management5%#5 of 9Detectify0%#– of 9What 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
What the models said about Tenable Attack Surface Management
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“The EASM component is more limited than dedicated EASM specialists, and works best alongside a dedicated EASM tool rather than instead of one” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“the platform can be overly complex ("heavy") and expensive relative to the immediate value provided. It is often viewed as overkill” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Their ASM offering is often viewed as a secondary addition to their core product” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“the best value pick is usually Tenable One Attack Surface Management” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice
“Best For: Teams that prefer hard technical data and CVSS scores over abstract "risk scores," particularly for compliance-heavy industries.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
“if you want attack surface management as part of a broader exposure management stack” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared
Intruder vs DetectifyIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs DetectifyAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs DetectifyMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs DetectifyCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementUpGuard BreachSight vs DetectifyUpGuard BreachSight vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementDetectify vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceTenable Attack Surface Management 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.