Digital risk protection · October 2026 Edition
UpGuard BreachSight vs Recorded Future
Eight of fourteen models named UpGuard BreachSight first on the direct prompt; zero named Recorded Future. UpGuard BreachSight was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Recorded Future by thirteen and UpGuard BreachSight carries 21 labels and Recorded Future 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share22%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%34%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels2135A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, UpGuard BreachSight reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.UpGuard BreachSight vs ZeroFox · UpGuard BreachSight vs SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence · UpGuard BreachSight vs BrandShield
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 digital risk protection page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
UpGuard BreachSightFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRecorded Future
Direct803 against Recorded Future
Paraphrase311 against Recorded Future
Comparative02
Budget-constrained001 against UpGuard BreachSight · 4 against Recorded Future
Scale-constrained01
Negative004 against Recorded Future
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, UpGuard BreachSight and Recorded Future were named in the same answer thirty-six times, of the 114 answers naming UpGuard BreachSight and the 128 naming Recorded Future. In those answers Recorded Future took the first choice one time and UpGuard BreachSight ten.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where UpGuard BreachSight and Recorded Future 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 | | | |
UpGuard BreachSight Recorded Future first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, UpGuard BreachSight on the left and Recorded Future on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where UpGuard BreachSight and Recorded Future stood in it.
UpGuard BreachSight first, Recorded Future an alternative
8 of 14 modelsRecorded Future was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarRapid7 Threat Command, UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CybelAngel
Grok 4.1 FastUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Rapid7 Threat Command, ZeroFox
Mistral SmallUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Kaduu, Recorded Future
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Netcraft, Rapid7, SOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence, ZeroFox
Kimi K2UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Fortra Brand Protection, ZeroFox
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: Bolster
MiniMax M2.5UpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon, Group-IB Digital Risk Protection, Recorded Future, ZeroFox
Muse Glimmer 30BUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CybelAngel
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 4.5Cyble Vision alternatives: BlueVoyant Sky, CrowdStrike Falcon, Rapid7 Threat Command, UpGuard BreachSight
GPT-5.4 miniZeroFox alternatives: Bitsight, Proofpoint Digital Risk Protection, SecurityScorecard, UpGuard BreachSight
Gemini 3.5 FlashSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence alternatives: Flare, UpGuard BreachSight, ZeroFox
Llama 4 MaverickFortra Brand Protection alternatives: Kaduu, Recorded Future, UpGuard BreachSight
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 alternatives: Corvus Logic, Cyberhaven, Recorded Future, ThreatConnect
Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-6 LunaCybelAngel Core alternatives: Bolster, BrandShield, ZeroFox
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
UpGuard BreachSight leads by eleven points.
UpGuard BreachSight11%#2 of 8Recorded Future0%#8 of 8Mid-marketThe figures above
UpGuard BreachSight leads by eighteen points.
UpGuard BreachSight22%#1 of 11Recorded Future4%#5 of 11Enterprise
The order flips: Recorded Future leads at enterprise.
Recorded Future17%#2 of 9UpGuard BreachSight2%#6 of 9What the models said about UpGuard BreachSight
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“What to avoid ... UpGuard BreachSight: $5,999/year minimum.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“UpGuard is the most frequently named fit for consolidated DRP + vendor / user risk outcomes without multiple point tools” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
“UpGuard is frequently highlighted as a top digital risk protection (DRP) platform for mid-market B2B companies” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“I would recommend UpGuard because: ✅ Specifically built for mid-market” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Recorded Future
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“What to avoid ... Recorded Future: Quote-based, but generally above $10,000/year.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Recorded Future is cited as an example of this trade-off: * Weaknesses: * Limited social media monitoring compared to platforms specializing in brand protection” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“Top-ranked for threat intel and DRP, but complaints include high costs, setup complexity, alert fatigue (less relevant noise), and limited automation” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strong threat intelligence integration, excels at contextualizing exposed data, dark web chatter, and threat actor signals.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you want deep threat intelligence context (understanding who is attacking and why) → Recorded Future” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“From leaders like Recorded Future (strong intel), ZeroFox (takedowns), Rapid7 (SOC integration).” Grok 4.1 Fast · scale prompt · first choice
Also compared
UpGuard BreachSight vs ZeroFoxUpGuard BreachSight vs SOCRadar Extended Threat IntelligenceUpGuard BreachSight vs BrandShieldUpGuard BreachSight vs FlareUpGuard BreachSight vs Rapid7 Threat CommandUpGuard BreachSight vs Proofpoint Digital Risk ProtectionZeroFox vs Recorded FutureSOCRadar Extended Threat Intelligence vs Recorded FutureBrandShield vs Recorded FutureRecorded Future vs FlareRecorded Future vs Rapid7 Threat CommandRecorded Future vs Proofpoint Digital Risk ProtectionAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full DRP 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.