Every category where a model named Bright Security 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
Dynamic application security testing	Developer platform	8%	5 of 58	0%	11	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Bright Security 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 Bright Security 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	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	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

Direct8 labels2

Paraphrase4 labels2

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative23 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 4 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.

“For most mid-sized B2B companies, I'd recommend Bright Security as the primary choice.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · DAST · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Bright Security is the strongest fit for many mid-market B2B teams” Perplexity Sonar · DAST · direct prompt · first choice

“I would recommend Acunetix or Bright Security as top choices” MiniMax M2.5 · DAST · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend StackHawk or Bright Security” Kimi K2 · DAST · direct 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Bright Security, over the 23 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Bright Security was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Invicti16 of 238Compare →

StackHawk14 of 234Compare →

Acunetix12 of 231Compare →

Burp Suite10 of 230Compare →

HCL AppScan7 of 231Not among the top eight

OWASP ZAP7 of 231Compare →

Aikido Security6 of 232Compare →

Intruder6 of 230Compare →

Rapid7 InsightAppSec6 of 230Not among the top eight

Veracode DAST5 of 231Not 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 Bright Security. 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 21 of the 23 answers that named Bright Security and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

aikido.dev16

beaglesecurity.com14

stackhawk.com13

getastra.com12

escape.tech11

invicti.com11

aimultiple.com10

augmentcode.com10

softwaretestinghelp.com9

cyberpress.org8

No domain is on file for Bright Security, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

aikido.dev/blog/top-dynamic-application-security-testing-dast-tools13

getastra.com/blog/dast/tools12

stackhawk.com/blog/dynamic-application-security-testing-tools-comparison12

aimultiple.com/dast-tools10

augmentcode.com/tools/best-dast-tools-for-enterprise-security10

beaglesecurity.com/blog/article/best-dast-tools.html9

softwaretestinghelp.com/dynamic-application-security-testing-dast-software9

cyberpress.org/dast-tools-by-use-case8

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where Bright Security stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 170 a month (“bright security”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 9 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 5 of 58 in DAST

Segment leader

29%

OWASP ZAP

First choices: 4 across its categories
Named in: 23 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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.

Names read as Bright Security

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

Bright Security (formerly NeuraLegion) 1

Follow Bright Security

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.

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 Bright Security'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 Bright Security, 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 Bright Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Bright Security 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 Bright Security, 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.