Insider risk management · October 2026 Edition
Code42 Incydr vs Cyberhaven
Three of fourteen models named Code42 Incydr first on the direct prompt; one named Cyberhaven. Code42 Incydr was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Cyberhaven by six and Code42 Incydr carries 30 labels and Cyberhaven 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in five categories this edition.
First-choice share13%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%20%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3010A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Code42 Incydr reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Code42 Incydr · Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Cyberhaven · Above Security vs Code42 Incydr
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 insider risk management page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Code42 IncydrFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCyberhaven
Direct31
Paraphrase30
Comparative01
Budget-constrained001 against Cyberhaven
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Cyberhaven
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 Code42 Incydr and Cyberhaven 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 | | | |
Code42 Incydr Cyberhaven first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Code42 Incydr on the left and Cyberhaven on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Code42 Incydr and Cyberhaven stood in it.
Code42 Incydr first, Cyberhaven not the choice
3 of 14 modelsCyberhaven was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Grok 4.1 FastCode42 Incydr, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management alternatives: DTEX InTERCEPT, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Safetica
DeepSeek V4 FlashCode42 Incydr alternatives: Above Security, Coro Insider Risk, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management
GPT-6 LunaCode42 Incydr alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Teramind
Cyberhaven first, Code42 Incydr an alternative
1 of 14 modelsCode42 Incydr was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashCyberhaven alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Safetica, Teramind
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Perplexity SonarAbove Security alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management, Varonis Data Security Platform
Kimi K2Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Code42 Incydr, DTEX InTERCEPT, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
GLM 4.7 FlashXSafetica Intelligent Data Security Platform alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Teramind
Muse Glimmer 30BAbove Security alternatives: Code42 Incydr
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Teramind alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management, Varonis Data Security Platform
GPT-5.4 miniMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Teramind, Varonis Data Security Platform
Mistral SmallAbove Security alternatives: Code42, DTEX Systems
Llama 4 MaverickAbove Security alternatives: Code42, DTEX InTERCEPT, Gurucul, Securonix UEBA
Qwen 3.7 FlashAbove Security alternatives: DTEX InTERCEPT, Microsoft Purview
MiniMax M2.5Above Security, Safetica alternatives: Teramind, UpGuard
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
Code42 Incydr leads by two points.
Code42 Incydr2%#7 of 11Cyberhaven0%#– of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Code42 Incydr leads by eleven points.
Code42 Incydr13%#3 of 12Cyberhaven2%#7 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Cyberhaven leads at enterprise.
Cyberhaven4%#8 of 13Code42 Incydr2%#9 of 13What the models said about Code42 Incydr
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Start with Code42 Incydr — it's purpose-built for the #1 insider risk in B2B (data/IP exfiltration), deploys quickly, and won't break the budget.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“Balanced mid-market pick: Proofpoint or Code42 Incydr for proven detection without overkill” Grok 4.1 Fast · direct prompt · first choice
“Code42 Incydr (now part of Mimecast) is widely considered the standard recommendation.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Cyberhaven
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“Potential concerns: Lacks breadth of cross-domain behavioral coverage and integration; may require additional tools” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“usually cost-prohibitive for companies on a limited budget, often starting at $25,000 to $75,000+ per year” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“If your primary goal is protecting IP (source code, CAD drawings, customer lists): Go with Cyberhaven.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Best Overall for SaaS-First & IP-Heavy Companies: Cyberhaven (Data Detection & Response)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Code42 IncydrMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs CyberhavenAbove Security vs Code42 IncydrAbove Security vs CyberhavenCode42 Incydr vs Proofpoint Insider Threat ManagementCode42 Incydr vs Microsoft PurviewCode42 Incydr vs TeramindProofpoint Insider Threat Management vs CyberhavenMicrosoft Purview vs CyberhavenTeramind vs CyberhavenAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full insider risk 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.