Vulnerability management platforms · October 2026 Edition
Qualys VMDR vs Vicarius vRx
One of fourteen models named Qualys VMDR first on the direct prompt; two named Vicarius vRx. Qualys VMDR was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Vicarius vRx by eight and Qualys VMDR carries 65 labels and Vicarius vRx 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share9%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate26%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels6511A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Qualys VMDR 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 Qualys VMDR · Rapid7 InsightVM vs Vicarius vRx · Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Qualys VMDR
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.
Qualys VMDRFirst choices, of fourteen modelsVicarius vRx
Direct122 against Qualys VMDR
Paraphrase003 against Qualys VMDR
Comparative60
Budget-constrained203 against Qualys VMDR
Scale-constrained201 against Qualys VMDR
Negative008 against Qualys VMDR
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Qualys VMDR and Vicarius vRx 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 | | | | | |
Qualys VMDR Vicarius vRx first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Qualys VMDR on the left and Vicarius vRx on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Qualys VMDR and Vicarius vRx stood in it.
Qualys VMDR first, Vicarius vRx not the choice
1 of 14 modelsVicarius vRx was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GLM 4.7 FlashXQualys VMDR alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Vicarius vRx first, Qualys VMDR not the choice
2 of 14 modelsQualys VMDR was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashSecPod SanerNow, Vicarius vRx alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Nucleus Security, Rapid7 InsightVM
DeepSeek V4 FlashRapid7 InsightVM, Vicarius vRx alternatives: Intruder, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.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
Perplexity SonarRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Qualys VMDR, Vicarius vRx
Grok 4.1 FastRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Kimi K2Intruder, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR
GPT-6 LunaTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Mistral SmallRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, SureCloud
Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Rapid7's Insight platform
MiniMax M2.5Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, Tenable One
Muse Glimmer 30BRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus
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
Qualys VMDR leads by two points.
Qualys VMDR4%#8 of 11Vicarius vRx2%#10 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Qualys VMDR leads by five points.
Qualys VMDR9%#4 of 10Vicarius vRx4%#7 of 10Enterprise
Qualys VMDR leads by thirty-two points.
Qualys VMDR32%#1 of 9Vicarius vRx0%#– of 9What the models said about Qualys VMDR
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Full‑featured enterprise tools (Rapid7, Qualys, Tenable.io) without a dedicated security team” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · hard negative
“it is frequently cited in user reviews as a platform where you should be cautious due to its high cost, high false positive rates, and poor support” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“Qualys VMDR also produces false positive and false negative alerts, making report generation time-consuming, and its interface is complex” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Holistic approach with comprehensive coverage... Best for: Enterprises needing broad asset coverage and real-time insights.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“Qualys VMDR | TruRisk scoring, unified cloud architecture, easy to use | Mid-market looking for a consolidated platform” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Tenable, Qualys, and Rapid7 InsightVM remain the three pure-play leaders that buyers should shortlist first” Muse Glimmer 30B · scale prompt · first choice
What the models said about Vicarius vRx
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“vRx is highly regarded in the mid-market space. It uses a single agent to perform vulnerability scanning, risk prioritization, and automated patching” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Rapid7 InsightVM or Vicarius vRx are the strongest overall picks.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“described as the strongest fit because of its patchless protection and lower operational overhead” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared
Rapid7 InsightVM vs Qualys VMDRRapid7 InsightVM vs Vicarius vRxTenable Vulnerability Management vs Qualys VMDRTenable Vulnerability Management vs Vicarius vRxIntruder vs Qualys VMDRIntruder vs Vicarius vRxQualys VMDR vs ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager PlusQualys VMDR vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementQualys VMDR vs Tenable NessusManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs Vicarius vRxMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs Vicarius vRxVicarius 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.