Deception technology · October 2026 Edition
Acalvio ShadowPlex vs T-Pot
Four of fourteen models named Acalvio ShadowPlex first on the direct prompt; zero named T-Pot. Acalvio ShadowPlex was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and T-Pot by nine and Acalvio ShadowPlex carries 42 labels and T-Pot 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
T-Pot
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share9%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate14%9%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels4211A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Acalvio ShadowPlex reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Thinkst Canary was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Thinkst Canary vs Acalvio ShadowPlex · Thinkst Canary vs T-Pot · Acalvio ShadowPlex vs Tracebit
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 deception technology page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Acalvio ShadowPlexFirst choices, of fourteen modelsT-PotDirect401 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Paraphrase001 against Acalvio ShadowPlex · 1 against T-Pot
Comparative80
Budget-constrained012 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Scale-constrained001 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Negative101 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
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 Acalvio ShadowPlex and T-Pot stood in it.
| Model | DirectTP | ParaphraseTP | ComparativeTP | Budget-constrainedTP | Scale-constrainedTP | NegativeTP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | TP | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | TP | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | TP | | |||
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | TP | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | TP | ||||
| Kimi K2 | | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | TP | | TP | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | TP | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | TP |
Acalvio ShadowPlexTP T-Pot first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Acalvio ShadowPlex on the left and T-Pot on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Acalvio ShadowPlex and T-Pot stood in it.
Acalvio ShadowPlex first, T-Pot not the choice
4 of 14 modelsT-Pot was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary
Grok 4.1 FastAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary
Mistral SmallAcalvio ShadowPlex, Attivo Networks ThreatDefend
MiniMax M2.5Acalvio ShadowPlex, Illusive Networks
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex
DeepSeek V4 FlashTracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fidelis Deception, FortiDeceptor
GLM 4.7 FlashXRapid7 InsightIDR alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fortinet FortiDeceptor
GPT-6 LunaTracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Thinkst Canary, Zscaler Deception
Muse Glimmer 30BFortinet FortiDeceptor, Rapid7 Incident Command alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Proofpoint, Thinkst Canary
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Deceptive Bytes alternatives: Acalvio 360 Deception, Illusive, Thinkst Canary
Gemini 3.5 FlashThinkst Canary alternatives: SentinelOne Singularity Hologram, Tracebit
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashHoneypot.io alternatives: Attivo Networks, Cymulate, Microsoft Defender XDR
Kimi K2Thinkst Canary alternatives: TrapEye, Trapster
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.
Acalvio ShadowPlex0%#9 of 9T-Pot0%#8 of 9
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Acalvio ShadowPlex leads by seven points.
Acalvio ShadowPlex9%#2 of 11T-Pot2%#6 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Acalvio ShadowPlex leads by forty-seven points.
Acalvio ShadowPlex47%#1 of 8T-Pot0%#– of 8
The full enterprise standing →What the models said about Acalvio ShadowPlex
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“look out for architectural red flags when evaluating active deception platforms (such as those from Acalvio, CounterCraft, or Fidelis Security)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“massive enterprise "deception grids" (such as Acalvio, Fidelis, or SentinelOne Attivo) are highly effective, they are cost-prohibitive” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“this complexity often translates to higher pricing and more required administrative upkeep” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · soft negative
“Consistently ranked as a leader in GigaOm’s Radar Report (2023–2024)... stands out for its centralized Deception Farm architecture, cloud-native design, and AI-driven countermeasures” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
“I recommend requesting demos from Illusive Networks and Acalvio specifically, as they appear most focused on the mid-market segment.” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“If you want enterprise-scale automation with very low operational burden, Acalvio is the recognized leader.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about T-Pot
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“High maintenance (Docker-heavy); better for labs than production.” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Pick `T-Pot` if you have ≥1 person who knows Linux, Docker, and log analysis, and you want maximum detection surface for $0.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“2. T-Pot - an open-source honeypot platform that combines multiple protocol-specific honeypots and analytics tools.” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“T-Pot is a strong option... but it has higher operational overhead and infrastructure requirements” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Thinkst Canary vs Acalvio ShadowPlexThinkst Canary vs T-PotAcalvio ShadowPlex vs TracebitAcalvio ShadowPlex vs OpenCanaryAcalvio ShadowPlex vs Fortinet FortiDeceptorAcalvio ShadowPlex vs Illusive NetworksTracebit vs T-PotOpenCanary vs T-PotFortinet FortiDeceptor vs T-PotT-Pot vs Illusive NetworksAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full deception 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.