Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
Intruder vs CyCognito
Eleven of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; two named CyCognito. Both were named by all fourteen models and Intruder carries 34 labels and CyCognito 39, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share49%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate3%26%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#4A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3439A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Intruder reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Intruder vs Attaxion · Intruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · Intruder vs UpGuard BreachSight
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.
IntruderFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCyCognito
Direct1123 against CyCognito
Paraphrase1001 against CyCognito
Comparative02
Budget-constrained303 against CyCognito
Scale-constrained11
Negative001 against Intruder · 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 Intruder 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 | | | |
Intruder CyCognito first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and CyCognito on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and CyCognito stood in it.
Both were the first choice
1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.MiniMax M2.5CyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Mandiant Attack Surface Management
Intruder first, CyCognito an alternative
10 of 14 modelsCyCognito was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.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
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
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, UpGuard BreachSight
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Attaxion, Halo Security
CyCognito first, Intruder an alternative
1 of 14 modelsIntruder was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5CyCognito alternatives: Hadrian, Halo Security, Intruder
Neither was the first choice, one was named
1 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
Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
Intruder leads by twenty-four points.
Intruder26%#1 of 13CyCognito2%#12 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Intruder leads by forty-three points.
Intruder49%#1 of 12CyCognito6%#4 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: CyCognito leads at enterprise.
CyCognito7%#3 of 9Intruder0%#– of 9What the models said about Intruder
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Basic scanners (e.g., some positioned as EASM like Intruder.io) discover assets but don't validate exploitability, leading to alert fatigue.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“the strongest default pick is Intruder because multiple 2026 reviews describe it as best for medium-sized businesses and mid-market organizations” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“Intruder is likely the best starting point due to its transparent pricing, ease of use, and comprehensive features at a reasonable cost” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct 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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs DetectifyIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceAttaxion vs CyCognitoMicrosoft 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.