Zero of fourteen models named AttackIQ first on the direct prompt; zero named Horizon3.ai NodeZero. AttackIQ was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Horizon3.ai NodeZero by six and AttackIQ carries 38 labels and Horizon3.ai NodeZero 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
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 breach and attack simulation page.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, AttackIQ and Horizon3.ai NodeZero were named in the same answer nineteen times, of the 131 answers naming AttackIQ and the 37 naming Horizon3.ai NodeZero. In those answers Horizon3.ai NodeZero took the first choice six times and AttackIQ two.
| 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 |
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.
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid: AttackIQ and SafeBreach tend to be priced higher and are better suited for larger enterprises” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · hard negative
“some reviewers noted it might not be suitable for larger companies due to potential scalability issues or management complexity” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“Widely respected for its alignment with the MITRE ATT&CK framework, but criticized for having a steeper learning curve.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“I'd usually recommend AttackIQ as the best all-around security control validation / breach-and-attack simulation tool.” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“1. AttackIQ - Focus: Continuous security validation and threat-informed defense.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“start with AttackIQ for adversary emulation” GPT-6 Luna · comparative prompt · first choice
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“more polished but exceed "limited budget" ... Avoid them unless you have funding.” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · soft negative
“opt for "automated security validation" or highly-automated BAS vendors (e.g., Cymulate, Pentera, Picus, or Horizon3)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“often cited as a strong BAS option for startups and small businesses due to its 30-day free trial and affordable pricing options” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · alternative
“If you want to replace expensive manual penetration tests ... choose Horizon3.ai NodeZero” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · alternative
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.