OT and IoT security · October 2026 Edition
Tenable OT Security vs Palo Alto Networks
Zero of fourteen models named Tenable OT Security first on the direct prompt; one named Palo Alto Networks. Tenable OT Security was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Palo Alto Networks by eleven and Tenable OT Security carries 27 labels and Palo Alto Networks 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in fourteen categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate15%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#8A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels2717A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Tenable OT Security 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 Tenable OT Security · Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Palo Alto Networks · Claroty xDome vs Tenable OT Security
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.
Tenable OT SecurityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsPalo Alto Networks
Direct01
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained201 against Tenable OT Security
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against Tenable OT Security · 1 against Palo Alto Networks
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, Tenable OT Security and Palo Alto Networks were named in the same answer twenty-one times, of the 72 answers naming Tenable OT Security and the 172 naming Palo Alto Networks. In those answers Palo Alto Networks took the first choice zero times and Tenable OT Security zero.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Tenable OT Security and Palo Alto Networks 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 | |
Tenable OT Security Palo Alto Networks first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Tenable OT Security on the left and Palo Alto Networks on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Tenable OT Security and Palo Alto Networks stood in it.
Palo Alto Networks 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.Llama 4 MaverickPalo Alto Networks alternatives: Claroty xDome, Forcepoint
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
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
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
Gemini 3.5 FlashFortinet OT Security Platform, Microsoft Defender for IoT alternatives: Claroty xDome, Nozomi Networks Guardian
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
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
Tenable OT Security leads by four points.
Tenable OT Security4%#3 of 9Palo Alto Networks0%#– of 9Mid-marketThe figures above
Tenable OT Security leads by two points.
Tenable OT Security4%#6 of 9Palo Alto Networks2%#8 of 9Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Tenable OT Security0%#8 of 9Palo Alto Networks0%#9 of 9What 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
What the models said about Palo Alto Networks
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“Palo Alto Networks' Industrial OT Security solution is designed to protect operational technology environments by leveraging advanced AI, real-time threat detection, and zero trust architecture.” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Microsoft Defender for IoT vs Tenable OT SecurityMicrosoft Defender for IoT vs Palo Alto NetworksClaroty xDome vs Tenable OT SecurityClaroty xDome vs Palo Alto NetworksNozomi Networks Guardian vs Tenable OT SecurityNozomi Networks Guardian vs Palo Alto NetworksFortinet OT Security Platform vs Tenable OT SecurityFortinet OT Security Platform vs Palo Alto NetworksArmis Centrix vs Tenable OT SecurityArmis Centrix vs Palo Alto NetworksTenable OT Security vs Dragos PlatformDragos Platform 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.