IT AI Index

Index › Products › IONIX · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

IONIX

18Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

8 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

9 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. IONIX was named 9 times in ASM, where Intruder led with 49%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business83 of 99

under the label threshold

Mid-market14 of 100

under the label threshold

Enterprise23 of 89

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 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	Since September 2026
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	14 of 100	11%	9	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 49%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

Movement

Since September 2026, IONIX held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.

Best category · ASM · by segment

Small business=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 79 → 77 of 93

Mid-market=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 19 → 13 of 98

Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 2% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 9 → 20 of 81

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
ASM	0%	0%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 19 → 14 of 100

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 IONIX 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	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	0	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.20	0	1	0	1	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative7 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative18 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 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.

“platforms that *validate, prioritize, and orchestrate remediation* (IONIX, Cortex Xpanse, Randori)” Kimi K2 · ASM · comparative prompt · first choice

“If your risk is heavily tied to subsidiaries, third parties, or digital supply chains, go with IONIX” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · comparative prompt · alternative

“Ionix and Synack, which offer comprehensive attack surface management with continuous discovery” Mistral Small · ASM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Prioritize highly rated, feature-rich options: Wiz, SOCRadar, IONIX, Palo Alto Cortex Xpanse” Grok 4.20 · ASM · negative 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.

“but often pricier/enterprise-oriented ($10K–$50K/year mid-market range)” Grok 4.20 · ASM · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as IONIX, over the 18 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.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

CyCognito16 of 185Not among the top eight

Cortex Xpanse15 of 185Not among the top eight

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management15 of 181Not among the top eight

Tenable Attack Surface Management10 of 181Not among the top eight

CrowdStrike Falcon Surface9 of 181Not among the top eight

Synack8 of 181Not among the top eight

Censys ASM8 of 180Not among the top eight

Bitsight6 of 180Not among the top eight

Intruder5 of 184Not among the top eight

Wiz5 of 183Not among the top eight

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 IONIX. 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 18 of the 18 answers that named IONIX and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

synack.com17

paloaltonetworks.com15

ionix.ioYour site13

upguard.com12

cycognito.com11

gartner.com9

breachsense.com8

guideflow.com8

wiz.io8

esecurityplanet.com7

Ninety-five of the 108 domain citations in answers naming IONIX came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

synack.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-tools17

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/asm-tools-comparison14

upguard.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software-solutions9

breachsense.com/blog/attack-surface-management-tools8

guideflow.com/blog/attack-surface-management-software8

ionix.io/writing-center/best-attack-surface-management-tools-in-2026-a-buyer-s-guide8

wiz.io/academy/cloud-security/attack-surface-management-tools8

esecurityplanet.com/networks/attack-surface-management-tools7

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

ionix.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, IONIX takes 0% of first choices and Intruder takes 49%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position 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: 2,400 a month (“ionix”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 131 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 5,733 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 1,110 · 40 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 632
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

45 ads · 21 text, 14 video, 10 image · 8 shown in the last 30 days

First shown June 2024, as Cyberpion, verified. Ads started 2025-10 to 2026-09: 14 in the year, 31 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 14 of 100 in ASM

Segment leader

49%

Intruder

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 18 answers
Its own site cited: in 18 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

Addresses on ionix.io

3,345

subdomains included

Content

417

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

16 · 3

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	177	2	2026-08-17	ASM, WAF
Report or ebook	92	0	2025-06-22	ASM
News or press	60	2	2026-07-31	ASM, CNAPP
Comparison	47	2	2026-09-02	ASM, WAF
Webinar or virtual event	17	0	2024-11-18
Podcast or video	7	undated		ASM
Case study	6	0	2024-06-27
Glossary or explainer	6	2	2026-08-12	ASM
Conference or event	3	undated
Template or tool	2	undated		ASM

Most recent

2026-09-02Ionix vs watchtowr pem comparison
2026-08-17New waf posture management solution blog
2026-08-13We built an ai pr reviewer blog
2026-08-12What is security control validation glossary or explainer
2026-08-07Bitsight alternatives operational mitigation comparison
2026-07-31News and events news or press

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page ionix.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 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

Follow IONIX

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

IONIX is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: Preemptive Exposure Mitigation
ionix.io
For: largest enterprises
ionix.io
Customers named: WMGE.ONGrand Canyon EducationFortune500 Insurance CompanyWarner Music Group
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting

What IONIX's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: ionix.io, ionix.io/solutions/manage-ma-risk, ionix.io/customers, ionix.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 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.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for IONIX by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where IONIX 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 IONIX, 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.