Every category where a model named AttackIQ 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
Breach and attack simulation	Security operations	2%	9 of 74	24%	38	accepted challenger
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	66 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

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

By model

How each model treated AttackIQ 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	2	1	1	4
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	2	0	3
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	0	2
Grok 4.20	0	3	0	1	4
Mistral Small	1	0	2	2	5
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	4	0	1	5
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	1	2	4
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	3	0	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	2	1	0	3
GPT-6 Luna	1	0	0	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	2	1	3

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

Direct25 labels4

Paraphrase13 labels3

Comparative32 labels9not counted in share

Budget-constrained15 labels5

Scale-constrained17 labels3

Negative29 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative131 labels in all, every segment counted; 15 of the 24 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.

“I'd usually recommend AttackIQ as the best all-around security control validation / breach-and-attack simulation tool.” GPT-5.4 mini · BAS · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“1. AttackIQ - Focus: Continuous security validation and threat-informed defense.” Mistral Small · BAS · comparative prompt · first choice

“start with AttackIQ for adversary emulation” GPT-6 Luna · BAS · comparative prompt · first choice

“ATT&CK-aligned, good SIEM/SOAR integrations, agentless option (Flex) | Reporting can be technical-heavy” DeepSeek V4 Flash · BAS · scale 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.

“Avoid: AttackIQ and SafeBreach tend to be priced higher and are better suited for larger enterprises” Kimi K2 · BAS · direct prompt · hard negative

“some reviewers noted it might not be suitable for larger companies due to potential scalability issues or management complexity” Mistral Small · BAS · negative prompt · soft negative

“Widely respected for its alignment with the MITRE ATT&CK framework, but criticized for having a steeper learning curve.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · BAS · negative prompt · soft negative

“Rebranded as "Adversarial Exposure Validation (AEV)"—potentially indicating category pivot due to BAS market challenges” Kimi K2 · BAS · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AttackIQ, over the 131 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AttackIQ was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cymulate113 of 13133Compare →

SafeBreach109 of 13113Not among the top eight

Picus Security Validation Platform99 of 13111Compare →

Pentera65 of 1313Compare →

XM Cyber35 of 1311Not among the top eight

Mandiant Security Validation22 of 1310Not among the top eight

Horizon3.ai NodeZero19 of 1316Compare →

NodeZero18 of 1317Compare →

Infection Monkey10 of 1313Not among the top eight

SCYTHE7 of 1310Not among the top eight

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 AttackIQ. 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 124 of the 131 answers that named AttackIQ and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

startupstash.com82

picussecurity.com77

guideflow.com75

csoonline.com50

g2.com49

adaptivesecurity.com48

cymulate.com47

gbhackers.com44

peerspot.com43

techtarget.com41

556 of the 556 domain citations in answers naming AttackIQ came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

startupstash.com/best-breach-and-attack-simulation-tools82

guideflow.com/blog/breach-and-attack-simulation-software71

csoonline.com/article/2132289/breach-and-attack-simulation-tools.html50

adaptivesecurity.com/blog/top-bas-platforms-to-strengthen-security-in-202547

peerspot.com/categories/breach-and-attack-simulation-bas35

esecurityplanet.com/products/breach-and-attack-simulation-bas-vendors31

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-breach-attack-simulation-tools-202631

gbhackers.com/best-breach-and-attack-simulation-bas-vendors29

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

attackiq.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, AttackIQ takes 2% of first choices and Cymulate takes 24%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “breach and attack simulation platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “breach and attack simulation platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 1,000 a month (“attackiq”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 9 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 1,414 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 516 · 25 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 1,711
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

60 ads · 59 text, 1 image · 11 shown in the last 30 days

First shown March 2025, as AttackIQ, Inc., verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 45 in the year, 15 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 9 of 74 in BAS

Segment leader

24%

Cymulate

First choices: 15 across its categories
Named in: 131 answers
Its own site cited: in 124 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on attackiq.com

2,010

subdomains included

Content

880

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

91 · 4

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
News or press	533	4	2026-09-23	SIEM, EDR
Report or ebook	97	4	2026-09-25
Webinar or virtual event	80	3	2026-07-23	SIEM
Glossary or explainer	68	0	2025-05-20	GRC
Podcast or video	44	0	2020-07-01
Case study	27	0	2021-01-25
Blog	18	2	2026-09-22	SIEM
Conference or event	6	0	2026-06-09
Comparison	6	0	2025-07-25
Template or tool	1	undated

Most recent

2026-09-25Most wanted report or ebook
2026-09-23Attackiq ava agentic os named ai powered enterprise agent solution of the year news or press
2026-09-22Attackiq names dave mihelcic field cto federal blog
2026-09-11Attacklq enterprise exposure management module blog
2026-08-10Forward deployed engineering report or ebook
2026-08-04Disa selects attackiq news or press

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page attackiq.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. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as AttackIQ

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

AttackIQ (part of Okta) 1

Follow AttackIQ

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

AttackIQ is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: The Agentic Operating System for CTEM
attackiq.com
For: teams and leadership
attackiq.com
Price stated: Product can be in the high end in terms of pricing but it is money well spent! attackiq.com
Free plan or trial: Try It Free attackiq.com
Certifications: Sales and Technical Training & CertificationAdvanced Training & Certification
Customers named: Fortune 50 RetailerFortune 500 Asset Management FirmISS World Services A/SSA Power NetworksMajor General InsurerU.S. Defense ContractorESEDDimensional Fund Advisors
Not stated on the pages read: Starting price, integrations, hosting

What AttackIQ's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: attackiq.com, attackiq.com/tag/compliance, attackiq.com/platform, attackiq.com/customers, attackiq.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 AttackIQ'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 AttackIQ, 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 AttackIQ by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where AttackIQ 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 AttackIQ, 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.