Every category where a model named HackerOne 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%	26 of 76	30%	10	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for HackerOne 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 HackerOne across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1	2
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative15 labelsNone

Budget-constrained7 labels2

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative37 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 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.

“If you want to minimize financial risk: Set up a private program on HackerOne.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PTaaS · budget prompt · alternative

“Large-scale, ongoing coverage → bug bounty/crowdsourced (HackerOne, Bugcrowd)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · PTaaS · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for continuous testing / bug bounty programs: HackerOne Platform” GPT-5.4 mini · PTaaS · direct 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.

“While good for finding unique bugs, tester continuity is lower because you never know which specific hacker will test your system next.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PTaaS · comparative prompt · soft negative

“typically more expensive for enterprise‑scale needs; often better suited to large, complex programs” GLM 4.7 FlashX · PTaaS · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“HackerOne (usually better for larger orgs)” Kimi K2 · PTaaS · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as HackerOne, over the 37 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and HackerOne was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cobalt31 of 3711Not in the top three

Synack28 of 375Not in the top three

NetSPI23 of 3713Not in the top three

Bugcrowd20 of 371Not in the top three

Bishop Fox19 of 371Not in the top three

BreachLock16 of 371Not in the top three

Astra Security11 of 371Not in the top three

Rapid79 of 371Not in the top three

NCC Group9 of 370Not in the top three

Coalfire8 of 371Not 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 HackerOne. 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 29 of the 37 answers that named HackerOne and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

deepstrike.io22

synack.com22

stingrai.io15

techrepublic.com15

underdefense.com14

cybri.com12

terra.security12

brightdefense.com10

getastra.com10

softwaresecured.com10

142 of the 142 domain citations in answers naming HackerOne came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

synack.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies18

techrepublic.com/article/best-penetration-testing-companies14

underdefense.com/blog/penetration-testing-services13

terra.security/blog/top-10-penetration-testing-as-a-service-ptaas-providers12

deepstrike.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-companies11

softwaresecured.com/post/top-10-penetration-testing-vendors10

deepstrike.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-as-a-service-ptaas9

cybri.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-vendors8

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as HackerOne

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

HackerOne (Program Builder) 1

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 HackerOne'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 HackerOne, 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 hackerone.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.