Deception technology · October 2026 Edition
Thinkst Canary vs Acalvio ShadowPlex
Three of fourteen models named Thinkst Canary first on the direct prompt; four named Acalvio ShadowPlex. Thinkst Canary was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Acalvio ShadowPlex by fourteen and Thinkst Canary carries 40 labels and Acalvio ShadowPlex 42, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share37%9%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%14%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#2A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels4042A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Thinkst Canary reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Thinkst Canary vs Tracebit · Thinkst Canary vs OpenCanary · Thinkst Canary vs Fortinet FortiDeceptor
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.
Thinkst CanaryFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAcalvio ShadowPlex
Direct341 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Paraphrase1101 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Comparative08
Budget-constrained202 against Thinkst Canary · 2 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Scale-constrained101 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Negative011 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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Thinkst Canary and Acalvio ShadowPlex were named in the same answer fifty-five times, of the 103 answers naming Thinkst Canary and the 110 naming Acalvio ShadowPlex. In those answers Acalvio ShadowPlex took the first choice eighteen times and Thinkst Canary twenty.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Thinkst Canary and Acalvio ShadowPlex stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | | ||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | | | | |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
Thinkst Canary Acalvio ShadowPlex first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Thinkst Canary on the left and Acalvio ShadowPlex on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Thinkst Canary and Acalvio ShadowPlex stood in it.
Thinkst Canary first, Acalvio ShadowPlex an alternative
3 of 14 modelsAcalvio ShadowPlex was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex
Gemini 3.5 FlashThinkst Canary alternatives: SentinelOne Singularity Hologram, Tracebit
Kimi K2Thinkst Canary alternatives: TrapEye, Trapster
Acalvio ShadowPlex first, Thinkst Canary an alternative
4 of 14 modelsThinkst Canary 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.Claude Haiku 4.5Deceptive Bytes alternatives: Acalvio 360 Deception, Illusive, Thinkst Canary
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
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashHoneypot.io alternatives: Attivo Networks, Cymulate, Microsoft Defender XDR
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
Thinkst Canary leads by thirty points.
Thinkst Canary30%#1 of 9Acalvio ShadowPlex0%#9 of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Thinkst Canary leads by twenty-eight points.
Thinkst Canary37%#1 of 11Acalvio ShadowPlex9%#2 of 11Enterprise
The order flips: Acalvio ShadowPlex leads at enterprise.
Acalvio ShadowPlex47%#1 of 8Thinkst Canary10%#2 of 8What the models said about Thinkst Canary
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“But pricier than open-source—avoid if truly limited.” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · soft negative
“Too expensive for most small budgets” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-sized B2B companies with a small SOC, start with Thinkst Canary for quick, high-confidence alerts and low operational overhead” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Lightweight / Token-Centric Deception (e.g., Thinkst Canary, Tracebit) ... Best For: Mid-market companies with small teams.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Thinkst Canary offers a very low entry price, making it an excellent choice for budget-conscious organizations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
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
Also compared
Thinkst Canary vs TracebitThinkst Canary vs OpenCanaryThinkst Canary vs Fortinet FortiDeceptorThinkst Canary vs T-PotThinkst Canary vs Illusive NetworksAcalvio ShadowPlex vs TracebitAcalvio ShadowPlex vs OpenCanaryAcalvio ShadowPlex vs Fortinet FortiDeceptorAcalvio ShadowPlex vs T-PotAcalvio ShadowPlex 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.