Vulnerability management platforms · October 2026 Edition
Intruder vs Tenable Nessus
Two of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Nessus. Intruder was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Tenable Nessus by eleven and Intruder carries 26 labels and Tenable Nessus 23, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four categories this edition.
Named in four categories this edition.
First-choice share11%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%30%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#8A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2623A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Intruder reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rapid7 InsightVM was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Rapid7 InsightVM vs Intruder · Rapid7 InsightVM vs Tenable Nessus · Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Intruder
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 vulnerability management platforms page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
IntruderFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTenable Nessus
Direct20
Paraphrase111 against Tenable Nessus
Comparative001 against Tenable Nessus
Budget-constrained313 against Tenable Nessus
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Tenable Nessus
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, Intruder and Tenable Nessus were named in the same answer thirty-eight times, of the 231 answers naming Intruder and the 83 naming Tenable Nessus. In those answers Tenable Nessus took the first choice three times and Intruder twenty-one.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Intruder and Tenable Nessus 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 | | | | |
Intruder Tenable Nessus first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and Tenable Nessus on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and Tenable Nessus stood in it.
Intruder first, Tenable Nessus not the choice
2 of 14 modelsTenable Nessus was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Rapid7's Insight platform
Kimi K2Intruder, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.1 FastRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Mistral SmallRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, SureCloud
DeepSeek V4 FlashRapid7 InsightVM, Vicarius vRx alternatives: Intruder, Tenable Vulnerability Management
MiniMax M2.5Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, Tenable One
Muse Glimmer 30BRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Vicarius vRx
GPT-5.4 miniRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Gemini 3.5 FlashSecPod SanerNow, Vicarius vRx alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Nucleus Security, Rapid7 InsightVM
Perplexity SonarRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Qualys VMDR, Vicarius vRx
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
GLM 4.7 FlashXQualys VMDR alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Tenable Vulnerability Management
GPT-6 LunaTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM
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
Intruder leads by thirty-nine points.
Intruder45%#1 of 11Tenable Nessus5%#3 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Intruder leads by seven points.
Intruder11%#3 of 10Tenable Nessus4%#8 of 10Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Intruder0%#– of 9Tenable Nessus0%#– of 9What the models said about Intruder
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“The best vulnerability management platform for a mid-market B2B company is Intruder, a user-friendly exposure management platform designed for mid-sized businesses.” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Tenable Nessus
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of six in this category shown.
“Avoid trying to scrape out a "Free" version of Nessus; Tenable discontinued its unlimited community scanner” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid Standalone "Point-in-Time" Scanners for Enterprise VM ... Why to avoid them for enterprise VM” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“scanners like older Nessus/OpenVAS versions criticized for inaccurate Windows scans or signature mismatches” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“the best starting point is Nessus Essentials (free) + a free vulnerability feed for on‑prem scanning” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Tenable Nessus Professional as the starting point” Grok 4.1 Fast · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“useful for getting started with proven scanning technology, with the limitation of scan limits and lack of centralized reporting” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
Rapid7 InsightVM vs IntruderRapid7 InsightVM vs Tenable NessusTenable Vulnerability Management vs IntruderTenable Vulnerability Management vs Tenable NessusIntruder vs Qualys VMDRIntruder vs ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager PlusIntruder vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementIntruder vs Vicarius vRxQualys VMDR vs Tenable NessusManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs Tenable NessusMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs Tenable NessusVicarius vRx vs Tenable NessusAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full vuln management 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.