OT and IoT security · October 2026 Edition
Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Armis Centrix
One of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender for IoT first on the direct prompt; one named Armis Centrix. Microsoft Defender for IoT was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Armis Centrix by fourteen and Microsoft Defender for IoT carries 42 labels and Armis Centrix 31, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Microsoft Defender for IoT
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share21%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels4231A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Microsoft Defender for IoT reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Claroty xDome was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Claroty xDome · Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Nozomi Networks Guardian · Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Fortinet OT Security Platform
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 OT and IoT security page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Microsoft Defender for IoTFirst choices, of fourteen modelsArmis Centrix
Direct11
Paraphrase321 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Comparative00
Budget-constrained601 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Scale-constrained001 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Negative016 against Microsoft Defender for IoT · 4 against Armis Centrix
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, Microsoft Defender for IoT and Armis Centrix were named in the same answer eighty-two times, of the 134 answers naming Microsoft Defender for IoT and the 106 naming Armis Centrix. In those answers Armis Centrix took the first choice seven times and Microsoft Defender for IoT twenty.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Microsoft Defender for IoT and Armis Centrix stood in it.
| Model | DirectMD | ParaphraseMD | ComparativeMD | Budget-constrainedMD | Scale-constrainedMD | NegativeMD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | MD | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | MD | MD | MD | MD | MD | |
| Perplexity Sonar | MD | MD | ||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | MD | MD | MD | MD | ||
| Mistral Small | MD | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | MD | MD | MD | | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | MD | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | MD | MD | |||
| Kimi K2 | MD | MD | MD | MD | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | MD | MD | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | MD | MD | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | MD | MD | MD | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | MD | MD | MD |
MD Microsoft Defender for IoT Armis CentrixMD first choiceMD named as an alternativeMD argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender for IoT on the left and Armis Centrix on the right.
Armis CentrixMD first choiceMD named as an alternativeMD argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender for IoT on the left and Armis Centrix on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Defender for IoT and Armis Centrix stood in it.
Microsoft Defender for IoT first, Armis Centrix not the choice
1 of 14 modelsArmis Centrix was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashFortinet OT Security Platform, Microsoft Defender for IoT alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian
Armis Centrix first, Microsoft Defender for IoT an alternative
1 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Defender for IoT was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2Armis Centrix, Claroty xDome alternatives: Fortinet OT Security Platform, Microsoft Defender for IoT, Nozomi Networks Guardian
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniClaroty xDome alternatives: Armis Centrix, Dragos Platform
DeepSeek V4 FlashClaroty xDome alternatives: Microsoft Defender for IoT, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Palo Alto Networks Industrial OT Security
MiniMax M2.5Radiflow360 alternatives: Armis Centrix, Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Tenable OT Security
Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian alternatives: Dragos Platform, Fortinet OT Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks, Tenable OT Security
Perplexity SonarRadiflow360 alternatives: Claroty xDome, Dragos Platform, Fortinet OT Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks
Grok 4.1 FastClaroty xDome alternatives: Dragos Platform, Fortinet OT Security Platform, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Palo Alto Networks
Mistral SmallDragos Platform alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian
Llama 4 MaverickPalo Alto Networks alternatives: Claroty xDome, Forcepoint
Qwen 3.7 FlashIndustrial AI alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Tenable.io OT
GLM 4.7 FlashXFortinet OT Security Platform alternatives: Dragos Platform, Nozomi Networks Guardian
GPT-6 LunaNozomi Networks Vantage alternatives: Claroty xDome, Dragos Platform
Muse Glimmer 30BRadiflow360 alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian
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
Microsoft Defender for IoT leads by thirty-eight points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT40%#1 of 9
Armis Centrix2%#5 of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Microsoft Defender for IoT leads by fifteen points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT21%#1 of 9
Armis Centrix6%#5 of 9Enterprise
Microsoft Defender for IoT leads by nine points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT15%#3 of 9
Armis Centrix6%#5 of 9What the models said about Microsoft Defender for IoT
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid if budget is tight: Nozomi Networks and Microsoft Defender for IoT” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“I'd avoid starting a new deployment that depends on this console... That's a caution about the legacy console, not a blanket warning against Microsoft Defender for IoT.” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“These are IT-security vendors extending into OT. Their effectiveness depends on how well their OT findings integrate with your existing SOC” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Microsoft Defender for IoT (if you are a Microsoft shop) or Fortinet (if you use their network hardware) are the most successful starting points” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“For a small company with one OT site and up to 100 devices, I'd start by evaluating Microsoft Defender for IoT's XS site license.” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest starting with Microsoft Defender for IoT ($70-250/month) as the most cost-effective commercial solution” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Armis Centrix
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Example Platforms to approach with caution: Armis Centrix (or similar integration-heavy IT/IoT platforms)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strong on IoT/XIoT discovery but weaker on deep OT protocol knowledge vs. natives like Dragos/Nozomi.” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“not the same as deep OT-native detection; they may be better suited to IoT visibility” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“I'd recommend Armis as the primary choice due to its balance of comprehensive device discovery, ease of implementation, and vendor compatibility” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“You should only choose Agentless (passive monitoring) platforms like Claroty, Nozomi, or Armis for OT.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
“start with Claroty xDome or Armis” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Claroty xDomeMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Nozomi Networks GuardianMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Fortinet OT Security PlatformMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Tenable OT SecurityMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Dragos PlatformMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Palo Alto NetworksClaroty xDome vs Armis CentrixNozomi Networks Guardian vs Armis CentrixFortinet OT Security Platform vs Armis CentrixArmis Centrix vs Tenable OT SecurityArmis Centrix vs Dragos PlatformArmis Centrix vs Palo Alto NetworksAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full ot/iot security 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.