Every category where a model named Attaxion 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
Attack surface management	Security operations	11%	2 of 104	5%	21	accepted challenger
Third-party risk management	Security operations	0%	36 of 72	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 53%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Attaxion 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 Attaxion across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	2	0	0	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	2	0	0	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	0	1	4
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	2	0	1	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2

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

Direct11 labels1

Paraphrase11 labels1

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained12 labels4

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative5 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative44 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 8 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.

“If you want an easy commercial dashboard with zero setup and a predictable flat-rate budget, choose Attaxion.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · budget prompt · first choice

“such as Intruder, Detectify, or Attaxion, which typically cost between $10,000 and $50,000 per year” Llama 4 Maverick · ASM · budget prompt · first choice

“Attaxion - Best Value for SMBs ... Attaxion Starter ($129/mo) | Best value per asset” Kimi K2 · ASM · budget prompt · first choice

“Attaxion stands out as the top recommendation for budget-conscious organizations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · ASM · budget prompt · first choice

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.

“Verdict: Avoid these if you require strict integration workflows.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ASM · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Attaxion, over the 44 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Attaxion was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Intruder39 of 4424Compare →

Detectify35 of 442Compare →

Cortex Xpanse18 of 440Not in the top three

CyCognito17 of 440Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management17 of 440Not in the top three

Bitsight9 of 440Not in the top three

UpGuard BreachSight8 of 441Not in the top three

ThreatScope8 of 440Not in the top three

runZero6 of 443Not in the top three

Censys ASM6 of 440Not 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 Attaxion. 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 39 of the 44 answers that named Attaxion and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberbench.net31

upguard.com28

attaxion.comYour site27

synack.com23

g2.com20

gartner.com16

circleid.com14

bitsight.com13

intruder.io12

wiz.io12

169 of the 196 domain citations in answers naming Attaxion came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberbench.net/blog/best-easm-platforms-mid-market-202631

upguard.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software-solutions28

attaxion.com/top-external-attack-surface-management-vendors26

synack.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-tools23

gartner.com/reviews/market/external-attack-surface-management16

bitsight.com/guides/best-external-attack-surface-management-platforms-for-global-enterpris13

circleid.com/posts/detectify-vs-intruder-external-attack-surface-management-on-a-budget13

wiz.io/academy/cloud-security/attack-surface-management-tools12

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 Attaxion'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 Attaxion, 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 attaxion.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.