Small businessgoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsNot ranked
1 category · Named, not rankedAttack Surface Scan
1Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
1 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Attack Surface Scan was named 1 time in ASM, where Intruder led with 49%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market65 of 100
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In asm · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Attack Surface Scan 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attack surface management | Security operations | 0% | 65 of 100 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 49% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Attack Surface Scan held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · ASM · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 40 → 64 of 98
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASM | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 40 → 65 of 100 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Attack Surface Scan across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Attack Surface Scan across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 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
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained1 labelNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative1 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.
No positive label carried a quote.
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 Attack Surface Scan, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Attack Surface Scan was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Attack Surface Scan, over the 1 answer that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Attack Surface Scan was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 Attack Surface Scan. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 1 of the 1 answers that named Attack Surface Scan and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
attacksurfacescan.comYour site1
attaxion.com1
azure.microsoft.com1
circleid.com1
cloudsek.com1
expertinsights.com1
github.com1
guideflow.com1
itechguides.com1
microsoft.com1
Nine of the ten domain citations in answers naming Attack Surface Scan came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on attacksurfacescan.com
85
subdomains included
Content
46
counted in the table below
Documentation
16
Product · Integration
9 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 26 | 18 | 2026-09-24 | ASM | |
| Template or tool | 10 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 9 | 6 | 2026-09-04 | CSPM, ASM | |
| Glossary or explainer | 1 | 0 | 2026-05-12 | ASM |
Most recent
- 2026-09-24Tls certificates blog
- 2026-09-24Microsoft defender easm pricing blog
- 2026-09-24Attack surface management for msps blog
- 2026-09-24Choosing a certificate authority 47 day certificates blog
- 2026-09-04Afs vs cert spotter comparison
- 2026-09-04Microsoft 365 outage expired certificate september 2026 blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page attacksurfacescan.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow Attack Surface Scan
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Attack Surface Scan is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Attack Surface Scan is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- External attack surface management at a flat price
- For
- small team
- Price stated
- Plans start at $25/month; the MSP plan is $149/month; $25, $49 or $149 a month, flat; Enterprise on request attacksurfacescan.com
- Starting price
- 25 attacksurfacescan.com
- Free plan or trial
- 7-day free trial; no card required to start attacksurfacescan.com
- Integrations claimed
- 8 attacksurfacescan.com
- Hosting
- United States (N. Virginia)
- Not stated on the pages read
- Certifications, customers
What Attack Surface Scan's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: attacksurfacescan.com, attacksurfacescan.com/pricing, attacksurfacescan.com/docs/compliance, attacksurfacescan.com/use-cases/founders, attacksurfacescan.com/partners. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 Attack Surface Scan'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 Attack Surface Scan, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Attack Surface Scan by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Attack Surface Scan is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Attack Surface Scan, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.