Attack surface management · October 2026 Edition
UpGuard BreachSight vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Two of fourteen models named UpGuard BreachSight first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. UpGuard BreachSight was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Tenable Attack Surface Management by eight and UpGuard BreachSight carries 17 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share6%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#5#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels1718A 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 Tenable Attack Surface Management · 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 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct201 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Paraphrase10
Comparative00
Budget-constrained011 against UpGuard BreachSight
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against UpGuard BreachSight · 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 UpGuard BreachSight 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 | |
UpGuard BreachSight Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, UpGuard BreachSight on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where UpGuard BreachSight and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
UpGuard BreachSight first, Tenable Attack Surface Management an alternative
2 of 14 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management 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
4 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
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, UpGuard BreachSight
Neither was named
8 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
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
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
UpGuard BreachSight3%#7 of 13Tenable Attack Surface Management3%#9 of 13Mid-marketThe figures above
UpGuard BreachSight leads by four points.
UpGuard BreachSight6%#5 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#7 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Tenable Attack Surface Management leads at enterprise.
Tenable Attack Surface Management5%#5 of 9UpGuard BreachSight0%#– of 9What 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 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 UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs UpGuard BreachSightAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs UpGuard BreachSightMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementUpGuard BreachSight vs DetectifyUpGuard BreachSight vs CrowdStrike Falcon SurfaceDetectify 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.