Index › Security operations › ASM › Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
One of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Tenable Attack Surface Management by eight and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management carries 39 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share10%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate18%17%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3918A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management · Attaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
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.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct101 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Paraphrase20
Comparative001 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Budget-constrained11
Scale-constrained101 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Negative005 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · 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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management and Tenable Attack Surface Management were named in the same answer thirty-nine times, of the 116 answers naming Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management and the 65 naming Tenable Attack Surface Management. In those answers Tenable Attack Surface Management took the first choice four times and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management two.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 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 | |
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management first, Tenable Attack Surface Management not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, Rapid7 Surface Command
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 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
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
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
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
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
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
Tenable Attack Surface Management leads by two points.
Tenable Attack Surface Management3%#9 of 13Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management2%#10 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management leads at mid-market.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management10%#3 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#7 of 12Enterprise
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management leads by eleven points.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management16%#2 of 9Tenable Attack Surface Management5%#5 of 9What the models said about Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Microsoft’s native ASM is described as tightly integrated with Defender and Azure, so it may be less suitable if you need broad multi-cloud, SaaS, or heterogeneous coverage” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“integrates deeply with Microsoft/Sentinel/Defender; limited third-party integration for non-Microsoft environments.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“while Microsoft Defender EASM is excellent at passive discovery, its active vulnerability scanning can be lacking” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“the best attack surface management (ASM) platform is Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management (EASM) if you already use Microsoft 365/E5” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“I'd generally recommend Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management as the first tool to evaluate” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd start with Microsoft Defender EASM—especially if you already use Azure or Microsoft security tools.” GPT-6 Luna · 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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs CyCognitoMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs UpGuard BreachSightMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs DetectifyMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceCyCognito 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.