Zero of fourteen models named Tenable OT Security first on the direct prompt; one named Dragos Platform. Tenable OT Security was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Dragos Platform by fourteen and Tenable OT Security carries 27 labels and Dragos Platform 46, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
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.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Tenable OT Security and Dragos Platform were named in the same answer sixty times, of the 72 answers naming Tenable OT Security and the 136 naming Dragos Platform. In those answers Dragos Platform took the first choice eight times and Tenable OT Security two.
| 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 |
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.
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
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 (for Mid-Market) ... Premium pricing (~$100K+/year for single site) and complex deployments.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · hard negative
“What to avoid on a tight budget: Claroty, Nozomi Networks, and Dragos” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Dragos is excellent but tends to lean toward highly complex, utility-grade environments with threat intelligence-heavy requirements.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · soft negative
“For OT threat intelligence depth → Dragos (especially if you want the best intelligence subscription and IR expertise)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Recognized as a leader for its robust OT-specific threat detection, asset visibility, and risk management.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“consider platforms purpose-built for industrial environments, such as Dragos, Nozomi Networks, or Claroty” Mistral Small · negative prompt · first choice
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.