Eight of fourteen models named Cymulate first on the direct prompt; three named Picus Security Validation Platform. Both were named by all fourteen models and Cymulate carries 53 labels and Picus Security Validation Platform 49, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in one category 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, Cymulate and Picus Security Validation Platform were named in the same answer 123 times, of the 169 answers naming Cymulate and the 150 naming Picus Security Validation Platform. In those answers Picus Security Validation Platform took the first choice thirteen times and Cymulate thirty-seven.
| 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.
“some enterprise users have noted that its dynamic reporting, user interface complexity, and third-party SIEM/EDR integrations can occasionally be unstable” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Integration Stability: Users frequently cite "integration issues" as a hurdle... Be cautious if your primary goal is automated remediation” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Industry-standard vendors like Cymulate or Pentera typically charge $50k–$100k+ annually, making them inaccessible for tight budgets.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Choose Cymulate or SafeBreach if you want a reliable, easy-to-use, and highly visible metric of overall security posture” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Cymulate is one of the most widely deployed BAS platforms, known for its broad enterprise validation capabilities.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“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
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“don't publish pricing and typically start at $30,000-$50,000+ annually, which may be prohibitive for smaller organizations” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · soft negative
“Picus (~$30K+/year) are more polished but exceed "limited budget"” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · soft negative
“Caution level: Moderate (UI and reporting friction).” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative 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
“is NodeZero or Picus Security, which offer cost-effective validation and automated testing with clear reporting” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“the most cost-effective breach and attack simulation (BAS) platforms are NodeZero and Picus Security” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
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.