| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attack surface management | Security operations | 0% | 18 of 100 | 12% | 8 | 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. |
| Vulnerability management platforms | Security operations | 0% | 18 of 77 | 0% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 30% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASM | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 22 → 18 of 100 |
| Vuln management | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 14 → 18 of 77 |
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
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management; it can work with third-party endpoint environments, but check which capabilities and integrations you'd actually use” GPT-6 Luna · ASM · direct prompt · alternative
“Best For: Existing CrowdStrike customers who want to eliminate active vulnerability scans” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Vuln management · comparative prompt · alternative
“Combines external attack-surface discovery with broader exposure capabilities” GPT-6 Luna · ASM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Not the best choice as a standalone, stack-agnostic ASM solution.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ASM · comparative prompt · alternative
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.
“strong product, but generally better suited to companies already invested in CrowdStrike” GPT-5.4 mini · ASM · budget prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 44 of the 44 answers that named CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management and are not a share of its labels.
115 of the 129 domain citations in answers naming CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 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.
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.
What CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: crowdstrike.com/platform/exposure-management, crowdstrike.com/platform/exposure-management/xiot-old, crowdstrike.com/es-latam/platform/exposure-management, crowdstrike.com/en-us/interactive-demos/falcon-exposure-management, crowdstrike.com/tech-hub/exposure-management/creating-configuration-assessment-rules. A claimed page can correct any of them.
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 CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management'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 CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: