Index › Security operations › OT/IoT security › Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Nozomi Networks Guardian
OT and IoT security · October 2026 Edition
Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Nozomi Networks Guardian
One of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender for IoT first on the direct prompt; one named Nozomi Networks Guardian. Microsoft Defender for IoT was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Nozomi Networks Guardian by thirteen and Microsoft Defender for IoT carries 42 labels and Nozomi Networks Guardian 46, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Microsoft Defender for IoT
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share21%10%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#3A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels4246A 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 Fortinet OT Security Platform · Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Armis Centrix
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 modelsNozomi Networks Guardian
Direct11
Paraphrase331 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Comparative01
Budget-constrained601 against Microsoft Defender for IoT · 3 against Nozomi Networks Guardian
Scale-constrained011 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Negative026 against Microsoft Defender for IoT · 3 against Nozomi Networks Guardian
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 Nozomi Networks Guardian were named in the same answer ninety-six times, of the 134 answers naming Microsoft Defender for IoT and the 142 naming Nozomi Networks Guardian. In those answers Nozomi Networks Guardian took the first choice sixteen times and Microsoft Defender for IoT twenty-five.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Microsoft Defender for IoT and Nozomi Networks Guardian 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 Nozomi Networks GuardianMD first choiceMD named as an alternativeMD argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender for IoT on the left and Nozomi Networks Guardian on the right.
Nozomi Networks GuardianMD first choiceMD named as an alternativeMD argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender for IoT on the left and Nozomi Networks Guardian on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Defender for IoT and Nozomi Networks Guardian stood in it.
Microsoft Defender for IoT first, Nozomi Networks Guardian an alternative
1 of 14 modelsNozomi Networks Guardian 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
Nozomi Networks Guardian first, Microsoft Defender for IoT not the choice
1 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Defender for IoT was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian alternatives: Dragos Platform, Fortinet OT Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks, Tenable OT Security
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.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
DeepSeek V4 FlashClaroty xDome alternatives: Microsoft Defender for IoT, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Palo Alto Networks Industrial OT Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashIndustrial AI alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Tenable.io OT
Kimi K2Armis Centrix, Claroty xDome alternatives: Fortinet OT Security Platform, Microsoft Defender for IoT, Nozomi Networks Guardian
GLM 4.7 FlashXFortinet OT Security Platform alternatives: Dragos Platform, Nozomi Networks Guardian
MiniMax M2.5Radiflow360 alternatives: Armis Centrix, Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Tenable OT Security
Muse Glimmer 30BRadiflow360 alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniClaroty xDome alternatives: Armis Centrix, Dragos Platform
Perplexity SonarRadiflow360 alternatives: Claroty xDome, Dragos Platform, Fortinet OT Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks
Llama 4 MaverickPalo Alto Networks alternatives: Claroty xDome, Forcepoint
GPT-6 LunaNozomi Networks Vantage alternatives: Claroty xDome, Dragos Platform
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
Nozomi Networks Guardian2%#6 of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Microsoft Defender for IoT leads by ten points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT21%#1 of 9
Nozomi Networks Guardian10%#3 of 9Enterprise
The order flips: Nozomi Networks Guardian leads at enterprise.
Nozomi Networks Guardian22%#2 of 9Microsoft Defender for IoT15%#3 of 9
The full enterprise standing →What 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 Nozomi Networks Guardian
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” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“The presence of recent high-severity privilege and authentication issues does not mean the product should be avoided outright, it means deployments must be kept current” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“frequently cost six figures and require dedicated Security Operations Center (SOC) teams—usually out of reach” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Offers the broadest range of deployment form factors and has the most extensive OT and IoT device coverage by asset type count and the strongest scalability” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Claroty and Nozomi are widely regarded as market leaders for broad asset visibility and risk posture.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Nozomi Networks (specifically their Guardian platform with Vantage SaaS management)” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Claroty xDomeMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Fortinet OT Security PlatformMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Armis CentrixMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Tenable OT SecurityMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Dragos PlatformMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Palo Alto NetworksClaroty xDome vs Nozomi Networks GuardianNozomi Networks Guardian vs Fortinet OT Security PlatformNozomi Networks Guardian vs Armis CentrixNozomi Networks Guardian vs Tenable OT SecurityNozomi Networks Guardian vs Dragos PlatformNozomi Networks Guardian 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.