Breach and attack simulation · October 2026 Edition
NodeZero vs Horizon3.ai NodeZero
Four of fourteen models named NodeZero first on the direct prompt; zero named Horizon3.ai NodeZero. NodeZero was named by nine of the fourteen models and Horizon3.ai NodeZero by six and NodeZero carries 14 labels and Horizon3.ai NodeZero 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
NodeZero
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share12%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels1412A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, NodeZero reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cymulate was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cymulate vs NodeZero · Cymulate vs Horizon3.ai NodeZero · Picus Security Validation Platform vs NodeZero
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.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
NodeZeroFirst choices, of fourteen modelsHorizon3.ai NodeZero
Direct40
Paraphrase00
Comparative10
Budget-constrained301 against Horizon3.ai NodeZero
Scale-constrained01
Negative00
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 NodeZero and Horizon3.ai NodeZero stood in it.
| Model | DirectNO | ParaphraseNO | ComparativeNO | Budget-constrainedNO | Scale-constrainedNO | NegativeNO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | NO | NO | NO | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | NO | | ||||
| Mistral Small | NO | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | NO | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | NO | |||||
| Kimi K2 | NO | NO | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | NO | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | NO | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | NO | |
NO NodeZero Horizon3.ai NodeZeroNO first choiceNO named as an alternativeNO argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, NodeZero on the left and Horizon3.ai NodeZero on the right.
Horizon3.ai NodeZeroNO first choiceNO named as an alternativeNO argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, NodeZero on the left and Horizon3.ai NodeZero on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where NodeZero and Horizon3.ai NodeZero stood in it.
NodeZero first, Horizon3.ai NodeZero not the choice
4 of 14 modelsHorizon3.ai NodeZero was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Qwen 3.7 FlashNodeZero alternatives: Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform
Kimi K2NodeZero alternatives: Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform
GLM 4.7 FlashXNodeZero, Picus Security Validation Platform alternatives: AttackIQ, Cymulate, Pentera, SafeBreach
MiniMax M2.5Cymulate, NodeZero alternatives: AttackIQ
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 FlashPicus Security Validation Platform alternatives: Cymulate, Horizon3.ai NodeZero
Perplexity SonarPicus Security Validation Platform alternatives: Cymulate, NodeZero
Grok 4.1 FastCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, NodeZero, Picus Security Validation Platform
Muse Glimmer 30BCymulate alternatives: NodeZero, Picus Security Validation Platform
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Cymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, Pentera
GPT-5.4 miniCymulate alternatives: Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform
Mistral SmallCymulate alternatives: Weseth
DeepSeek V4 FlashCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, Picus Security Validation Platform
Llama 4 MaverickValidato alternatives: Weseth
GPT-6 LunaCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ Flex, Picus Security Validation Platform
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
Horizon3.ai NodeZero leads by three points.
Horizon3.ai NodeZero8%#6 of 12NodeZero5%#8 of 12
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: NodeZero leads at mid-market.
NodeZero12%#3 of 9
Horizon3.ai NodeZero2%#7 of 9Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
NodeZero0%#– of 7
Horizon3.ai NodeZero0%#– of 7What the models said about NodeZero
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Choose NodeZero or Pentera if you want highly automated attack emulation that can quickly surface exploitable paths.” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · first choice
“The best breach and attack simulation platform for a company with a limited budget is NodeZero or Picus Security” 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
What the models said about Horizon3.ai NodeZero
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
Also compared
Cymulate vs NodeZeroCymulate vs Horizon3.ai NodeZeroPicus Security Validation Platform vs NodeZeroPicus Security Validation Platform vs Horizon3.ai NodeZeroNodeZero vs PenteraNodeZero vs AttackIQ FlexNodeZero vs AttackIQPentera vs Horizon3.ai NodeZeroAttackIQ Flex vs Horizon3.ai NodeZeroAttackIQ vs Horizon3.ai NodeZeroAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full BAS 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.