Small business=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 26 → 22 of 71
1 category · Named, not rankedBudget Security
3Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
2 / 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. Budget Security was named 1 time in PTaaS, where Cobalt led with 45%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business25 of 76
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market39 of 82
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
In ptaas · 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 Budget 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Penetration testing as a service | Security operations | 0% | 39 of 82 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 45% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Budget Security held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · PTaaS · by segment
Mid-marketnewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 35 of 74, unchanged
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 39 of 82, unchanged |
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 Budget Security 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 Budget 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 | 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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-constrained3 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative3 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.
“built specifically for low budgets, charging transparent daily rates” Gemini 3.5 Flash · PTaaS · budget 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.
No model argued against it.
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Budget Security, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Budget Security was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Budget Security, over the 3 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Budget Security 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 Budget 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 3 of the 3 answers that named Budget Security and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
budgetsecurity.comYour site3
breachlock.com2
bugcircuit.com2
capterra.com2
defendify.com2
reddit.com2
synack.com2
vonahi.io2
affordablepentesting.com1
appsecsanta.com1
Sixteen of the nineteen domain citations in answers naming Budget Security 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 budgetsecurity.com
72
subdomains included
Content
21
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 17 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 3 | undated | |||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page budgetsecurity.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 Budget 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.
The company
Budget Security is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Budget Security is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Self-Serve Penetration Testing Platform
- For
- Teams that want to book, scope and manage manual penetration tests online
- Price stated
- $985 / tester-day · EU €849 budgetsecurity.com
- Starting price
- $2,955 budgetsecurity.com
- Free plan or trial
- Creating an account is free. Free account · No card required budgetsecurity.com
- Certifications
- OSCP certified expertsOSCP-certified testersOSCPOSWE
- Hosting
- EU
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, customers
What Budget Security's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: budgetsecurity.com, budgetsecurity.com/compliance/nis2-pentesting. 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 Budget 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 Budget 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 Budget Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Budget 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 Budget 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.