Every category where a model named IONIX 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	0%	18 of 104	11%	9	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 59%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for IONIX 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 IONIX 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	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	1	2	0	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1

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

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labels1

Comparative10 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative5 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 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.

“worth considering if your mid-sized company has a more complex, distributed attack surface” Perplexity Sonar · ASM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Nine independent discovery methods, strong attribution accuracy” MiniMax M2.5 · ASM · comparative prompt · alternative

“The digital supply chain and third-party exposure specialist.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · comparative 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.

“Usually overkill on price and complexity for a mid-sized firm” DeepSeek V4 Flash · ASM · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as IONIX, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and IONIX was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CyCognito21 of 254Not in the top three

Cortex Xpanse18 of 253Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management16 of 251Not in the top three

Censys ASM14 of 250Not in the top three

Synack13 of 251Not in the top three

Detectify11 of 251Not in the top three

Tenable Attack Surface Management10 of 250Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Surface8 of 251Not in the top three

IBM Randori8 of 250Not in the top three

Bitsight7 of 251Not 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 IONIX. 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 20 of the 25 answers that named IONIX and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

upguard.com19

synack.com16

ionix.ioYour site15

gartner.com14

bitsight.com12

wiz.io12

guptadeepak.com9

paloaltonetworks.com8

secpod.com8

geekflare.com7

105 of the 120 domain citations in answers naming IONIX came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

upguard.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software-solutions19

synack.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-tools16

bitsight.com/guides/best-external-attack-surface-management-platforms-for-global-enterpris12

gartner.com/reviews/market/external-attack-surface-management11

wiz.io/academy/cloud-security/attack-surface-management-tools11

ionix.io/writing-center/best-attack-surface-management-tools-in-2026-a-buyer-s-guide10

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-10-attack-surface-management-tools-20269

gartner.com/reviews/market/cyber-asset-attack-surface-management7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as IONIX

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

Ionix 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 IONIX'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 IONIX, 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 ionix.io 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.