Cyber risk quantification · October 2026 Edition
Kovrr vs RiskLens
One of fourteen models named Kovrr first on the direct prompt; zero named RiskLens. Kovrr was named by twelve of the fourteen models and RiskLens by thirteen and Kovrr carries 30 labels and RiskLens 27, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
RiskLens
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share12%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate13%37%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#5A position in a field of 6; printed, not drawn.
Labels3027A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Kovrr reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.CyberSaint CyberStrong was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. CyberSaint CyberStrong vs Kovrr · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLens · Kovrr vs SAFE Security
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.
KovrrFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRiskLensDirect101 against Kovrr · 1 against RiskLens
Paraphrase401 against Kovrr · 1 against RiskLens
Comparative01
Budget-constrained011 against Kovrr · 5 against RiskLens
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Kovrr · 3 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, Kovrr and RiskLens were named in the same answer forty-five times, of the 109 answers naming Kovrr and the 91 naming RiskLens. In those answers RiskLens took the first choice six times and Kovrr five.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Kovrr and RiskLens stood in it.
| Model | DirectRI | ParaphraseRI | ComparativeRI | Budget-constrainedRI | Scale-constrainedRI | NegativeRI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | RI | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | RI | RI | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | RI | |
| Perplexity Sonar | RI | RI | | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | RI | RI | ||
| Mistral Small | RI | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | RI | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | RI | | | RI | ||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | RI | RI | ||||
| Kimi K2 | RI | | | RI | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | RI | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | RI | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | RI | RI | RI | RI | |
KovrrRI RiskLens first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Kovrr on the left and RiskLens on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Kovrr and RiskLens stood in it.
Kovrr first, RiskLens not the choice
1 of 14 modelsRiskLens was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashKovrr alternatives: Axio, CyberSaint CyberStrong
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniSAFE Security alternatives: Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Perplexity SonarCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: RiskLens, SAFE One
Mistral SmallCyberSaint CyberStrong, Maxxsure alternatives: RiskLens
Llama 4 MaverickCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, Maxxsure, RiskLens
Qwen 3.7 FlashCyberSaint CyberStrong, Maxxsure alternatives: Black Kite, RiskLens
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 named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Cyrisma alternatives: Black Kite, Maxxsure, SAI360
Grok 4.1 FastCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Cyber Quant, Maxxsure, vCISO Lite
DeepSeek V4 FlashCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, SAFE Security, vCISO Lite
Kimi K2CyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, Maxxsure
GPT-6 LunaAxio360 alternatives: CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security
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.
Kovrr4%#3 of 7RiskLens4%#5 of 7
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: RiskLens leads at enterprise.
RiskLens9%#2 of 7
Kovrr0%#5 of 7What the models said about Kovrr
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“standard enterprise Cyber Risk Quantification (CRQ) tools (such as Kovrr, Safe Security, and Axio) are generally out of reach” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“without the enterprise pricing and dedicated FAIR analyst overhead you see with RiskLens/Safe Security, Kovrr, etc.” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“limited GRC integration and typically better suited for larger organizations or brokers” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
“Kovrr: Offers flexible pricing tailored to the organization's needs, transparent cost structure, and customizable packages for SMBs and large enterprises.” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Kovrr is the market leader... Actuarial-grade modeling that requires very little manual data entry.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“Mid-market accessible CRQ | CyberSaint, Kovrr, Cyrisma | Budget-conscious; fast time-to-value” Kimi K2 · scale 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
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.