AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Security operations › Cyber risk quant › CyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLens
Cyber risk quantification · October 2026 Edition

CyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLens

Ten of fourteen models named CyberSaint CyberStrong first on the direct prompt; zero named RiskLens. CyberSaint CyberStrong was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and RiskLens by thirteen and CyberSaint CyberStrong carries 26 labels and RiskLens 27, so the shares are not directly comparable.

CyberSaint CyberStrong

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

RiskLens

criticized challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share25%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%37%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 6; printed, not drawn.
Labels2627A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, CyberSaint CyberStrong reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.CyberSaint CyberStrong vs Kovrr · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE Security · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs Axio

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 cyber risk quantification page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
CyberSaint CyberStrongFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRiskLens
Direct1001 against RiskLens
Paraphrase201 against RiskLens
Comparative01
Budget-constrained015 against RiskLens
Scale-constrained10
Negative003 against RiskLens
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, CyberSaint CyberStrong and RiskLens were named in the same answer twenty-eight times, of the 54 answers naming CyberSaint CyberStrong and the 91 naming RiskLens. In those answers RiskLens took the first choice two times and CyberSaint CyberStrong eleven.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where CyberSaint CyberStrong and RiskLens stood in it.
ModelDirectRIParaphraseRIComparativeRIBudget-constrainedRIScale-constrainedRINegativeRI
Claude Haiku 4.5RI
GPT-5.4 miniRIRI
Gemini 3.5 FlashRI
Perplexity SonarRIRI
Grok 4.1 FastRIRI
Mistral SmallRI
DeepSeek V4 FlashRI
Llama 4 MaverickRIRI
Qwen 3.7 FlashRIRI
Kimi K2RIRI
GLM 4.7 FlashXRI
MiniMax M2.5RI
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30BRIRIRIRI
CyberSaint CyberStrongRI RiskLens first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CyberSaint CyberStrong on the left and RiskLens on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CyberSaint CyberStrong and RiskLens stood in it.

CyberSaint CyberStrong first, RiskLens an alternative

10 of 14 modelsRiskLens was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Perplexity SonarCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: RiskLens, SAFE One
Grok 4.1 FastCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Cyber Quant, Maxxsure, vCISO Lite
Mistral SmallCyberSaint CyberStrong, Maxxsure alternatives: RiskLens
DeepSeek V4 FlashCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, SAFE Security, vCISO Lite
Llama 4 MaverickCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, Maxxsure, RiskLens
Qwen 3.7 FlashCyberSaint CyberStrong, Maxxsure alternatives: Black Kite, RiskLens
Kimi K2CyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, Maxxsure
GLM 4.7 FlashXCyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security alternatives: Axio, Balbix, LogicGate Risk Cloud, RiskLens, UpGuard
MiniMax M2.5CyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Bitsight, Black Kite, Kovrr, LogicGate Risk Cloud, UpGuard
Muse Glimmer 30BCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Maxxsure, RiskLens, SAFE Security

Neither was the first choice, one was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashKovrr alternatives: Axio, CyberSaint CyberStrong
GPT-6 LunaAxio360 alternatives: CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security

Neither was named

2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Cyrisma alternatives: Black Kite, Maxxsure, SAI360
GPT-5.4 miniSAFE Security alternatives: Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier

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.
CyberSaint CyberStrong4%#4 of 7
RiskLens4%#5 of 7
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
CyberSaint CyberStrong leads by twenty-four points.
CyberSaint CyberStrong25%#1 of 6
RiskLens2%#5 of 6
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: RiskLens leads at enterprise.
RiskLens9%#2 of 7
CyberSaint CyberStrong0%#6 of 7
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about CyberSaint CyberStrong

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

“Often highlighted as the most accessible CRQ platform for mid-market organizations, with pricing starting around $30,000 annually.” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“CyberSaint is the most accessible CRQ platform for mid-market organizations, with pricing starting around $30,000 annually.” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest starting with CyberSaint if budget is a primary concern and you want an accessible entry point” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about RiskLens

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

“transparent pricing compared to most enterprise CRQ tools (like RiskLens or SAFE Security) that typically start at $25K–$200K+ annually” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“RiskLens (traditional FAIR implementation), manual FAIR assessments ... Heavy reliance on manual FAIR; resource-intensive” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Enterprise tools like RiskLens, LogicGate, or Balbix are powerful but start at $10K+/year, so skip unless scaling up.” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · soft negative
“One of the most established FAIR-native CRQ platforms... references enterprise-grade RiskLens as a benchmark tool” GPT-5.4 mini · comparative prompt · first choice
“RiskLens - a pioneer in FAIR methodology, best for FAIR-based quantification.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“RiskLens is the gold standard for those who want rigorous, scientifically backed quantification... Caveat: Ensure you get the right pricing tier” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared
CyberSaint CyberStrong vs KovrrCyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE SecurityCyberSaint CyberStrong vs AxioKovrr vs RiskLensSAFE Security vs RiskLensAxio vs RiskLensAll ten head-to-head pages and the full cyber risk quant 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.