Index › Security operations › ASM › Intruder vs Detectify

Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition

Intruder vs Detectify

Eleven of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; zero named Detectify. Intruder was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Detectify by nine and Intruder carries 34 labels and Detectify 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Intruder

endorsed leader

Named in four categories this edition.

Detectify

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share49%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate3%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#1#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.

Labels3420A 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 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.

IntruderFirst choices, of fourteen modelsDetectify

Direct110

Paraphrase1011 against Detectify

Comparative00

Budget-constrained30

Scale-constrained11

Negative001 against Intruder

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, Intruder and Detectify were named in the same answer sixty-one times, of the 231 answers naming Intruder and the 92 naming Detectify. In those answers Detectify took the first choice one time and Intruder twenty-eight.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Intruder 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

Intruder

Detectify

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Intruder first, Detectify an alternative

11 of 14 modelsDetectify 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 4.20Intruder 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

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

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

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

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

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 nineteen points.

Intruder#1 of 13

Detectify#3 of 13

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Intruder leads by forty-five points.

Intruder#1 of 12

Detectify#6 of 12

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Intruder#– of 9

Detectify#– of 9

The full enterprise standing →

What 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 4.20 · 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 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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management Intruder vs CyCognito Intruder vs UpGuard BreachSight Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management Intruder vs CrowdStrike Falcon Surface Attaxion vs Detectify 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.