Deception technology · October 2026 Edition
Thinkst Canary vs Illusive Networks
Three of fourteen models named Thinkst Canary first on the direct prompt; one named Illusive Networks. Thinkst Canary was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Illusive Networks by eight and Thinkst Canary carries 40 labels and Illusive Networks 12, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Illusive Networks
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share37%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%42%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels4012A 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.Acalvio ShadowPlex was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Thinkst Canary vs Acalvio ShadowPlex · Thinkst Canary vs Tracebit · Thinkst Canary vs OpenCanary
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 modelsIllusive NetworksDirect311 against Illusive Networks
Paraphrase1101 against Illusive Networks
Comparative01
Budget-constrained202 against Thinkst Canary
Scale-constrained10
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 Thinkst Canary and Illusive Networks stood in it.
| Model | DirectIN | ParaphraseIN | ComparativeIN | Budget-constrainedIN | Scale-constrainedIN | NegativeIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | IN |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | IN | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | IN | | | | IN | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | IN | | IN | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | IN | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | IN | | IN | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | ||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | IN |
Thinkst CanaryIN Illusive Networks first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Thinkst Canary on the left and Illusive Networks on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Thinkst Canary and Illusive Networks stood in it.
Thinkst Canary first, Illusive Networks not the choice
3 of 14 modelsIllusive Networks 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
Illusive Networks first, Thinkst Canary not the choice
1 of 14 modelsThinkst Canary was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.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
Perplexity SonarAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary
Grok 4.1 FastAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary
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.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
GLM 4.7 FlashXRapid7 InsightIDR alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fortinet FortiDeceptor
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 9Illusive Networks0%#– of 9
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Thinkst Canary leads by thirty-five points.
Thinkst Canary37%#1 of 11Illusive Networks2%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Thinkst Canary leads by eight points.
Thinkst Canary10%#2 of 8Illusive Networks2%#7 of 8
The full enterprise standing →What 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 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 Acalvio ShadowPlexThinkst Canary vs TracebitThinkst Canary vs OpenCanaryThinkst Canary vs Fortinet FortiDeceptorThinkst Canary vs T-PotAcalvio ShadowPlex vs Illusive NetworksTracebit vs Illusive NetworksOpenCanary vs Illusive NetworksFortinet FortiDeceptor vs Illusive NetworksT-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.