Every category where a model named Detectify 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	7%	3 of 104	10%	29	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Detectify 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 Detectify 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	1	1	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	0	2
Mistral Small	0	3	1	0	4
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	3	1	0	4
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	1	0	3
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	1	1
Kimi K2	0	2	0	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	0	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	1	1	2	0	4

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

Direct17 labels1

Paraphrase17 labels3

Comparative12 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained16 labels1

Scale-constrained6 labels1

Negative11 labels3not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative79 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 10 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.

“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

“Best For: B2B SaaS/software companies prioritizing web applications and API security.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“I would recommend starting with Intruder or Detectify.” MiniMax M2.5 · ASM · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Best for Web-Heavy Businesses: Detectify ... However, beware—its low advertised entry price ... only covers *application scanning*” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ASM · 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.

“External tools (like Intruder or Detectify) focus on what the *internet* sees. Avoid using these if your primary goal is managing internal corporate network exposure” Qwen 3.7 Flash · ASM · negative prompt · soft negative

“Detectify is described as web-focused, so it is not a fit for broader external exposure management needs.” Perplexity Sonar · ASM · negative prompt · soft negative

“Higher cost and more complex pricing structure compared to Intruder.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · ASM · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Detectify, over the 79 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Detectify was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Intruder68 of 7948Compare →

CyCognito38 of 792Not in the top three

Cortex Xpanse37 of 792Not in the top three

Attaxion35 of 792Compare →

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management26 of 792Not in the top three

UpGuard BreachSight22 of 790Not in the top three

Censys ASM21 of 790Not in the top three

Bitsight18 of 791Not in the top three

runZero12 of 794Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Surface12 of 790Not 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 Detectify. 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 71 of the 79 answers that named Detectify and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

upguard.com51

cyberbench.net50

synack.com49

g2.com39

attaxion.com37

gartner.com27

geekflare.com25

guideflow.com25

wiz.io25

bitsight.com23

351 of the 351 domain citations in answers naming Detectify came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

cyberbench.net/blog/best-easm-platforms-mid-market-202650

upguard.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software-solutions50

synack.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-tools49

attaxion.com/top-external-attack-surface-management-vendors35

g2.com/categories/attack-surface-management/small-business28

guideflow.com/blog/attack-surface-management-software25

geekflare.com/cybersecurity/best-attack-surface-monitoring24

wiz.io/academy/cloud-security/attack-surface-management-tools24

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 Detectify'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 Detectify, 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 detectify.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.