Every category where a model named Abuse.ch for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Threat intelligence platforms	Security operations	0%	20 of 128	0%	10	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Abuse.ch yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Abuse.ch across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	2	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	0	2
Kimi K2	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase15 labels1

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained9 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative4 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative30 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 2 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Abuse.ch (Threatfox, URLhaus) - High trust, human curated.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Threat intel · negative prompt · first choice

“Provides free feeds for malware URLs, domains, and IPs. It is highly respected and widely used.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Threat intel · budget prompt · alternative

“abuse.ch (URLhaus, ThreatFox, MalwareBazaar) | Malware and malicious URL intelligence” Kimi K2 · Threat intel · budget prompt · alternative

“Abuse.ch projects — MalwareBazaar, URLhaus, ThreatFox, Feodo Tracker” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Threat intel · budget prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Abuse.ch, over the 30 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Abuse.ch was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

AlienVault OTX23 of 305Not in the top three

MISP22 of 307Not in the top three

Recorded Future19 of 303Not in the top three

VirusTotal14 of 302Not in the top three

OpenCTI11 of 304Not in the top three

ThreatConnect10 of 302Not in the top three

CISA AIS9 of 300Not in the top three

NordStellar8 of 300Not in the top three

Anomali ThreatStream7 of 301Not in the top three

GreyNoise7 of 300Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Abuse.ch. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 24 of the 30 answers that named Abuse.ch and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

b2breviews.com17

upguard.com17

learn.g2.com16

vectra.ai14

comparitech.com10

expertinsights.com10

sourceforge.net10

spotsaas.com10

defend.network8

github.com8

120 of the 120 domain citations in answers naming Abuse.ch came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

b2breviews.com/threat-intelligence-platforms17

upguard.com/blog/best-threat-intelligence-platforms-and-vendors17

learn.g2.com/best-threat-intelligence-tools16

vectra.ai/topics/threat-intelligence-tools14

comparitech.com/net-admin/best-threat-intelligence-feeds10

spotsaas.com/list/threat-intelligence-software/for-small-business9

misp-project.org/8

esecurityplanet.com/products/threat-intelligence-platforms7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Abuse.ch

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Abuse.ch; a claim can dispute any of them.

Abuse.ch (ThreatFox & URLhaus) 1Abuse.ch (URLhaus, ThreatFox, MalwareBazaar) 1abuse.ch 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Abuse.ch's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Abuse.ch, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at abusech.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.