IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › HIFENCE · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

HIFENCE

2Judge labels

1First choices

1Negative labels

2 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, 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. HIFENCE was named 1 time in PTaaS, where Cobalt led with 44%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business53 of 57

under the label threshold

Mid-market13 of 76

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

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 HIFENCE 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	2%	13 of 76	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	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-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 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.

“I'd recommend starting with Bug Circuit or HIFENCE for initial testing” Kimi K2 · PTaaS · budget 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 HIFENCE, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and HIFENCE was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

BreachLock2 of 21Not in the top three

Bug Circuit2 of 20Not in the top three

Astra Security1 of 21Not in the top three

Acunetix1 of 20Not in the top three

Cobalt1 of 20Not in the top three

Intruder1 of 20Not in the top three

NetSPI1 of 20Not in the top three

Synack1 of 20Not 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 HIFENCE. 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 2 of the 2 answers that named HIFENCE and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

bugcircuit.com2

clutch.co2

lorikeetsecurity.com2

objectstorage.us-ashburn-1.oraclecloud.com2

pentestingproviders.com2

stingrai.io2

techrepublic.com2

underdefense.com2

affordablepentesting.com1

beaglesecurity.com1

Eighteen of the eighteen domain citations in answers naming HIFENCE came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

bugcircuit.com/services/penetration-testing-small-business2

clutch.co/it-services/cybersecurity/penetration-testing2

lorikeetsecurity.com/blog/top-10-pentesting-companies-20262

objectstorage.us-ashburn-1.oraclecloud.com/n/idjn99rg9axo/b/it-services/o/com-nyc-listicle2

pentestingproviders.com/best/affordable-penetration-testing2

techrepublic.com/article/best-penetration-testing-companies2

underdefense.com/blog/penetration-testing-services2

affordablepentesting.com/1

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 HIFENCE'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 HIFENCE, 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 hifence.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.