OT and IoT security · October 2026 Edition
Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Tenable OT Security
One of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender for IoT first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable OT Security. Microsoft Defender for IoT was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Tenable OT Security by eleven and Microsoft Defender for IoT carries 42 labels and Tenable OT Security 27, 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%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%15%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#6A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels4227A 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 modelsTenable OT Security
Direct10
Paraphrase301 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Comparative00
Budget-constrained621 against Microsoft Defender for IoT · 1 against Tenable OT Security
Scale-constrained001 against Microsoft Defender for IoT
Negative006 against Microsoft Defender for IoT · 3 against Tenable OT Security
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 Tenable OT Security were named in the same answer forty-three times, of the 134 answers naming Microsoft Defender for IoT and the 72 naming Tenable OT Security. In those answers Tenable OT Security took the first choice zero times and Microsoft Defender for IoT eleven.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Microsoft Defender for IoT and Tenable OT Security 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 Tenable OT SecurityMD first choiceMD named as an alternativeMD argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender for IoT on the left and Tenable OT Security on the right.
Tenable OT SecurityMD first choiceMD named as an alternativeMD argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender for IoT on the left and Tenable OT Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Defender for IoT and Tenable OT Security stood in it.
Microsoft Defender for IoT first, Tenable OT Security not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTenable OT Security 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
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.Claude Haiku 4.5Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian alternatives: Dragos Platform, Fortinet OT Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks, Tenable OT Security
DeepSeek V4 FlashClaroty xDome alternatives: Microsoft Defender for IoT, Nozomi Networks Guardian, Palo Alto Networks Industrial OT Security
Kimi K2Armis Centrix, Claroty xDome alternatives: Fortinet OT Security Platform, Microsoft Defender for IoT, Nozomi Networks Guardian
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.GPT-5.4 miniClaroty xDome alternatives: Armis Centrix, Dragos Platform
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-six points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT40%#1 of 9
Tenable OT Security4%#3 of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Microsoft Defender for IoT leads by seventeen points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT21%#1 of 9
Tenable OT Security4%#6 of 9Enterprise
Microsoft Defender for IoT leads by fifteen points.
Microsoft Defender for IoT15%#3 of 9
Tenable OT Security0%#8 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 Tenable OT Security
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“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
“these vendors risk falling behind peers regarding advanced AI-driven detection capabilities” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Tenable.ot has user complaints on asset classification accuracy and sensor bugs” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“frequently cited as a more budget-friendly option compared to some competitors... Start with a free trial or the most affordable commercial platform (like Tenable OT Security or Acreto)” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
“Best Overall Value: Tenable OT Security (formerly Tenable.ot)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Tenable's Tenable One exposure management platform is a comprehensive attack surface management system covering endpoints, cloud environments, OT systems” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · alternative
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 Armis CentrixMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Dragos PlatformMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Palo Alto NetworksClaroty xDome vs Tenable OT SecurityNozomi Networks Guardian vs Tenable OT SecurityFortinet OT Security Platform vs Tenable OT SecurityArmis Centrix vs Tenable OT SecurityTenable OT Security vs Dragos PlatformTenable OT Security 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.