Small business▼−23Since September 2026: 52% → 29%, −23 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement. Read over the models both editions asked.
29%from 52% in September 2026
Cleared the floor by 12 pointsRank 1 of 93, unchanged
4 categories · RankedIntruder
231Judge labels
86First choices
6Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
4Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
49% in ASM for mid-market buyers
Rank 1 of 100 in the mid-market standingendorsed leader
11 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 3% of its 34 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Intruder →By buyer segmentA mid-market product: leader at mid-market, not named at enterprise.
Small business1 of 99
26%44 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market1 of 100
49%34 labels
endorsed leader
Enterprise43 of 89
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
In asm · 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 Intruder 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attack surface management | Security operations | 49% | 1 of 100 | 3% | 34 | endorsed leader | ▼−6Since September 2026: 59% → 53%, −6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Vulnerability management platforms | Security operations | 11% | 3 of 77 | 0% | 26 | accepted challenger | ▼−3Since September 2026: 16% → 12%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Dynamic application security testing | Developer platform | 6% | 6 of 58 | 0% | 13 | accepted challenger | |
| Penetration testing as a service | Security operations | 2% | 12 of 82 | 20% | 5 | under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 45% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Intruder held within the floor in all four categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · ASM · by segment
Mid-market▼−6Since September 2026: 59% → 53%, −6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
53%from 59% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 1 of 98, unchanged
Enterprise=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 54 → 63 of 81
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAST | 0% | 7% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 7% now. | New this edition | Rank 6 of 58, unchanged |
| ASM | 59% | 53% | ▼−6Since September 2026: 59% → 53%, −6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 1 of 100, unchanged |
| Vuln management | 16% | 12% | ▼−3Since September 2026: 16% → 12%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 3 of 77 |
| PTaaS | 0% | 2% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 21 → 12 of 82 |
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 Intruder 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 Intruder 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 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Grok 4.20 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Mistral Small | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
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
Direct59 labels33
Paraphrase46 labels28
Comparative38 labels20not counted in share
Budget-constrained49 labels18
Scale-constrained12 labels7
Negative27 labels9not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative231 labels in all, every segment counted; 86 of the 115 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.
“The best vulnerability management platform for a mid-market B2B company is Intruder, a user-friendly exposure management platform designed for mid-sized businesses.” Llama 4 Maverick · Vuln management · direct prompt · first choice
“the strongest default pick is Intruder because multiple 2026 reviews describe it as best for medium-sized businesses and mid-market organizations” Perplexity Sonar · ASM · direct prompt · first choice
“If you need a tool that is easy to set up, offers good support, and doesn't require deep security expertise, Intruder is likely the best fit.” Mistral Small · DAST · direct prompt · first choice
“Intruder is likely the best starting point due to its transparent pricing, ease of use, and comprehensive features at a reasonable cost” GLM 4.7 FlashX · ASM · direct 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.
“Basic scanners (e.g., some positioned as EASM like Intruder.io) discover assets but don't validate exploitability, leading to alert fatigue.” Grok 4.20 · ASM · negative prompt · soft negative
“More automated/vulnerability-scanning focused, affordable entry point, but no expert remediation included” Kimi K2 · PTaaS · comparative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Intruder, over the 231 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Intruder was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Intruder, over the 231 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Intruder 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 Intruder. 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 231 of the 231 answers that named Intruder and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
g2.com96
intruder.ioYour site82
expertinsights.com64
getastra.com64
upguard.com64
thectoclub.com61
beaglesecurity.com59
guideflow.com56
techrepublic.com56
vicarius.io53
573 of the 655 domain citations in answers naming Intruder came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where Intruder stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where Intruder stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “attack surface management platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “attack surface management platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 27,100 a month (“intruder”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 8,557 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 49,562 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 2,899 · 50 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 2,101
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
49%
rank 1 of 100 in ASM
First choices
86
across its categories
- Named in
- 231 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 231 of the answers that named it
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.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on intruder.io
684
subdomains included
Content
328
counted in the table below
Documentation
184
Product · Integration
40 · 2
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 183 | 9 | 2026-09-21 | ASM | |
| Glossary or explainer | 73 | 2 | 2026-07-29 | ASM, MFA | |
| Comparison | 29 | 0 | 2026-05-11 | ASM | |
| Report or ebook | 18 | 2 | 2026-09-17 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 15 | 0 | 2026-04-30 | ASM | |
| Case study | 9 | 0 | 2025-12-12 | ||
| Conference or event | 1 | 0 | 2024-03-11 |
Most recent
- 2026-09-21What weve shipped lately september 2026 blog
- 2026-09-17Finding plesk rce by lying to ai report or ebook
- 2026-09-10How ai is changing the defenders toolkit blog
- 2026-09-10The most hyped cves of august 2026 what made noise whats being exploited blog
- 2026-08-20Api keys bank details disciplinary files what 28 000 exposed git repos gave up report or ebook
- 2026-08-18What weve shipped lately august 2026 blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page intruder.io 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. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Intruder
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Intruder; a claim can dispute any of them.
Intruder.io 12Intruder EASM 2
Follow Intruder
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
Intruder is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Intruder is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Unified, always-on exposure management for lean security teams. A single platform for vulnerability management, attack surface monitoring and cloud security.
- For
- lean security teams
- Price stated
- Free $0 / forever; Cloud $239 / month or $2,870 annually; Pro $399 / month or $4,790 annually; Enterprise Custom intruder.io/pricing
- Starting price
- 0 intruder.io/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Try for free intruder.io
- Integrations claimed
- 15 intruder.io
- Certifications
- SOC 2ISO 27001PCI DSSHIPAASOC2Cyber EssentialsISODORA
- Customers named
- Drata
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What Intruder's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: intruder.io, intruder.io/pricing, trust.intruder.io, intruder.io/use-cases/dast, intruder.io/partners. 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 Intruder'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 Intruder, 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 Intruder by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Intruder 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 Intruder, 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.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where Intruder is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where Intruder is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideAttack surface management
AI models recommend Intruder first in Attack surface management this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Vulnerability management platforms
Intruder is among the products AI models recommend first in Vulnerability management platforms this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.