Index › Security operations › ASM › UpGuard BreachSight vs Detectify

Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition

UpGuard BreachSight vs Detectify

Two of fourteen models named UpGuard BreachSight first on the direct prompt; zero named Detectify. UpGuard BreachSight was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Detectify by nine and UpGuard BreachSight carries 17 labels and Detectify 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

UpGuard BreachSight

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

Detectify

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate18%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#5#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.

Labels1720A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, UpGuard BreachSight 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 UpGuard BreachSight · Intruder vs Detectify · Attaxion 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.

UpGuard BreachSightFirst choices, of fourteen modelsDetectify

Direct20

Paraphrase111 against Detectify

Comparative00

Budget-constrained001 against UpGuard BreachSight

Scale-constrained01

Negative002 against UpGuard BreachSight

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, UpGuard BreachSight and Detectify were named in the same answer seventeen times, of the 114 answers naming UpGuard BreachSight and the 92 naming Detectify. In those answers Detectify took the first choice zero times and UpGuard BreachSight one.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where UpGuard BreachSight 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 4.1 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

UpGuard BreachSight

Detectify

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

UpGuard BreachSight first, Detectify not the choice

2 of 14 modelsDetectify was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

GPT-5.4 miniUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, Tenable Attack Surface Management

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

Neither was the first choice, one was named

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

Gemini 3.5 FlashIntruder alternatives: Detectify, UpGuard BreachSight, runZero

Perplexity SonarIntruder alternatives: Cortex Xpanse, Mandiant Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight

Mistral SmallIntruder alternatives: Bitsight, Detectify

Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight

GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, UpGuard BreachSight

Neither was named

7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5CyCognito alternatives: Hadrian, Halo Security, Intruder

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

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

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.

Detectify#3 of 13

UpGuard BreachSight#7 of 13

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

The order flips: UpGuard BreachSight leads at mid-market.

UpGuard BreachSight#5 of 12

Detectify#6 of 12

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

UpGuard BreachSight#– of 9

Detectify#– of 9

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about UpGuard BreachSight

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.

“Avoid at all costs (for your budget): Enterprise platforms like BitSight, UpGuard” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative

“aggregates asset data but lacks native capabilities for active vulnerability scanning or attack surface validation” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative

“High-severity alerts often not actionable (investigation overhead); limited report/alert customization” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative

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