Deception technology · October 2026 Edition
Tracebit vs Illusive Networks
Two of fourteen models named Tracebit first on the direct prompt; one named Illusive Networks. Tracebit was named by ten of the fourteen models and Illusive Networks by eight and Tracebit carries 18 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 share7%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%42%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels1812A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Tracebit 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 Tracebit · Thinkst Canary vs Illusive Networks · 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.
TracebitFirst choices, of fourteen modelsIllusive NetworksDirect211 against Illusive Networks
Paraphrase001 against Illusive Networks
Comparative01
Budget-constrained001 against Tracebit
Scale-constrained10
Negative002 against Tracebit · 3 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 Tracebit 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 |
TracebitIN Illusive Networks first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Tracebit on the left and Illusive Networks on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Tracebit and Illusive Networks stood in it.
Tracebit first, Illusive Networks not the choice
2 of 14 modelsIllusive Networks was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashTracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fidelis Deception, FortiDeceptor
GPT-6 LunaTracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Thinkst Canary, Zscaler Deception
Illusive Networks first, Tracebit not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTracebit 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
1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashThinkst Canary alternatives: SentinelOne Singularity Hologram, Tracebit
Neither was named
10 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
Perplexity SonarAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary
Grok 4.1 FastAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, Thinkst Canary
Mistral SmallAcalvio ShadowPlex, Attivo Networks ThreatDefend
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
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.
Tracebit0%#6 of 9Illusive Networks0%#– of 9
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Tracebit leads by four points.
Tracebit7%#3 of 11Illusive Networks2%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Tracebit2%#– of 8Illusive Networks2%#7 of 8
The full enterprise standing →What the models said about Tracebit
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“User reviews cite concerns about: Confusing, cluttered interface; Difficult navigation; False positives requiring manual review” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“G2 review summaries for Tracebit mention a confusing/cluttered interface, false positives, and a higher learning curve.” GPT-5.4 mini · negative prompt · soft negative
“While primarily focused on enterprise... check for the latest pricing and suitability for your scale.” Mistral Small · budget prompt · soft negative
“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
“Top Recommendation: Tracebit” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“I'd shortlist Tracebit first” GPT-6 Luna · direct 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 TracebitThinkst Canary vs Illusive NetworksAcalvio ShadowPlex vs TracebitAcalvio ShadowPlex vs Illusive NetworksTracebit vs OpenCanaryTracebit vs Fortinet FortiDeceptorTracebit vs T-PotOpenCanary 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.