Index › Security operations › Deception › T-Pot vs Illusive Networks

Deception technology · October 2026 Edition

T-Pot vs Illusive Networks

Zero of fourteen models named T-Pot first on the direct prompt; one named Illusive Networks. T-Pot was named by nine of the fourteen models and Illusive Networks by eight and T-Pot carries 11 labels and Illusive Networks 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.

T-Pot

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

Illusive Networks

criticized challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate9%42%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.

Labels1112A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, T-Pot reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Acalvio ShadowPlex was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Thinkst Canary vs T-Pot · Thinkst Canary vs Illusive Networks · Acalvio ShadowPlex vs T-Pot

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.

T-PotFirst choices, of fourteen modelsIllusive Networks

Direct011 against Illusive Networks

Paraphrase001 against T-Pot · 1 against Illusive Networks

Comparative01

Budget-constrained10

Scale-constrained00

Negative003 against Illusive Networks

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 T-Pot and Illusive Networks stood in it.

Model	DirectTPIN	ParaphraseTPIN	ComparativeTPIN	Budget-constrainedTPIN	NegativeTPIN
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini		TP
Gemini 3.5 Flash				TP	IN
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast		TP	IN
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash		IN			IN
Llama 4 Maverick		TP
Qwen 3.7 Flash				TP
Kimi K2	IN		IN
GLM 4.7 FlashX		TP	IN	TP
MiniMax M2.5	IN		IN
GPT-6 Luna				TP
Muse Glimmer 30B		TP			IN

TP T-PotIN Illusive NetworksTP first choiceTP named as an alternativeTP argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, T-Pot on the left and Illusive Networks on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where T-Pot and Illusive Networks stood in it.

Illusive Networks first, T-Pot not the choice

1 of 14 modelsT-Pot was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

MiniMax M2.5Acalvio ShadowPlex, Illusive Networks

Neither was named

13 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

GPT-5.4 miniThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex

Gemini 3.5 FlashThinkst Canary alternatives: SentinelOne Singularity Hologram, Tracebit

Perplexity SonarAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary

Grok 4.1 FastAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary

Mistral SmallAcalvio ShadowPlex, Attivo Networks ThreatDefend

DeepSeek V4 FlashTracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fidelis Deception, FortiDeceptor

Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

Qwen 3.7 FlashHoneypot.io alternatives: Attivo Networks, Cymulate, Microsoft Defender XDR

Kimi K2Thinkst Canary alternatives: TrapEye, Trapster

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

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.

T-Pot#8 of 9

Illusive Networks#– of 9

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Level: the same share of first choices.

T-Pot#6 of 11

Illusive Networks#7 of 11

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Illusive Networks leads by two points.

Illusive Networks#7 of 8

T-Pot#– of 8

The full enterprise standing →

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

What the models said about Illusive Networks

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

“Pure network-wide standalone deception from Illusive is essentially sunsetted” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative

“Caution flags: Reviews note it is "heavily focused on Microsoft environments" and has "limited cloud-native capabilities."” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

“legacy Illusive installs should be treated as end-of-life from a vendor perspective” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative

“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

“Often rated as the best overall deception platform for operational value.” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice

“excels at identity and credential deception, providing agentless decoys that disrupt lateral movement” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · alternative

Also compared

Thinkst Canary vs T-Pot Thinkst Canary vs Illusive Networks Acalvio ShadowPlex vs T-Pot Acalvio ShadowPlex vs Illusive Networks Tracebit vs T-Pot Tracebit vs Illusive Networks OpenCanary vs T-Pot OpenCanary vs Illusive Networks Fortinet FortiDeceptor vs T-Pot Fortinet FortiDeceptor vs Illusive Networks All 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.