Every category where a model named Bishop Fox 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
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	17 of 76	6%	16	accepted challenger
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	64 of 104	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 59%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Bishop Fox 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 Bishop Fox 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	0	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	1	1	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	2	0	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

Direct14 labels2

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative22 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained4 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative1 label1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative46 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 5 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.

“Top Service: Bishop Fox” GLM 4.7 FlashX · PTaaS · comparative prompt · first choice

“Enterprises requiring deep manual expertise should look to firms like NetSPI, Trustwave, or Bishop Fox” Claude Haiku 4.5 · PTaaS · comparative prompt · alternative

“Bishop Fox | Complex environments | Premium | Exploitation evidence, remediation-ready reporting” Kimi K2 · PTaaS · comparative prompt · alternative

“consistently rated #1 by some analysts for exploitation evidence and remediation-ready reporting” DeepSeek V4 Flash · PTaaS · comparative 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 traditional consultancies like Bishop Fox unless you need deep red teaming—they're typically $60K-$350K+ and overkill” Kimi K2 · PTaaS · direct prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Bishop Fox, over the 46 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Bishop Fox was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

NetSPI39 of 4616Not in the top three

Synack38 of 467Not in the top three

Cobalt36 of 4610Not in the top three

BreachLock20 of 461Not in the top three

NCC Group20 of 460Not in the top three

HackerOne19 of 461Not in the top three

Astra Security15 of 464Not in the top three

Rapid715 of 461Not in the top three

Mandiant15 of 460Not in the top three

Bugcrowd13 of 460Not 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 Bishop Fox. 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 46 answers that named Bishop Fox and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

deepstrike.io32

synack.com32

cybri.com21

techrepublic.com21

underdefense.com21

stingrai.io19

redbotsecurity.com16

softwaresecured.com16

getastra.com14

clutch.co13

205 of the 205 domain citations in answers naming Bishop Fox came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

synack.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies31

techrepublic.com/article/best-penetration-testing-companies21

underdefense.com/blog/penetration-testing-services20

cybri.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-vendors16

redbotsecurity.com/penetration-testing-companies16

softwaresecured.com/post/top-10-penetration-testing-vendors15

clutch.co/it-services/cybersecurity/penetration-testing13

deepstrike.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-companies12

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 Bishop Fox'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 Bishop Fox, 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 bishopfox.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.