Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Eleven of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. Intruder was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Tenable Attack Surface Management by eight and Intruder carries 34 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share49%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate3%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3418A 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 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct1101 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Paraphrase100
Comparative00
Budget-constrained31
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Intruder · 2 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 Intruder 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 | | | |
Intruder Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
Intruder first, Tenable Attack Surface Management not the choice
11 of 14 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management 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
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 twenty-two points.
Intruder26%#1 of 13Tenable Attack Surface Management3%#9 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
Intruder leads by forty-seven points.
Intruder49%#1 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#7 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Tenable Attack Surface Management leads at enterprise.
Tenable Attack Surface Management5%#5 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 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 AttaxionIntruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs CyCognitoIntruder vs UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs DetectifyIntruder vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementUpGuard BreachSight vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementDetectify vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementTenable 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.