Every category where a model named OpenVAS 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
Vulnerability management platforms	Security operations	4%	9 of 77	31%	16	criticized challenger	▼−7Since September 2026: 9% → 2%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
Breach and attack simulation	Security operations	2%	17 of 74	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Cymulate at 24%
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	76 of 82	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 45%	=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
OT and IoT security	Security operations	0%	98 of 107	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for IoT at 21%

Movement

Since September 2026, OpenVAS held within the floor in all four categories: no change cleared 11 points.

Best category · Vuln management · by segment

Small business▼−7Since September 2026: 11% → 4%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

4%from 11% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 4 pointsRank 2 → 6 of 76

Mid-market▼−7Since September 2026: 9% → 2%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

2%from 9% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 4 pointsRank 4 → 12 of 74

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 69 → 62 of 62

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
Vuln management	9%	2%	▼−7Since September 2026: 9% → 2%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 4 → 9 of 77
BAS	0%	2%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now.	New this edition	Rank 17 of 74, unchanged
PTaaS	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 65 → 76 of 82
OT/IoT security	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 98 of 107, unchanged

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 OpenVAS 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	1	2	1	0	4
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1	1	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	0	1
Grok 4.20	1	0	0	2	3
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	2	2
Kimi K2	0	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1	2
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2
GPT-6 Luna	0	1	0	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	0	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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase9 labels1

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained28 labels5

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative25 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative69 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 6 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 have staff time to host and maintain scans, Greenbone Community Edition is the cheapest complete platform.” Muse Glimmer 30B · Vuln management · budget prompt · first choice

“the best vulnerability management platform is likely the free Greenbone Community Edition (based on OpenVAS)” Grok 4.20 · Vuln management · budget prompt · first choice

“Start with a vulnerability scanner (Nessus or OpenVAS for cost-effectiveness)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · BAS · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“if your biggest problem is budget, start with Greenbone/OpenVAS or Nuclei, but don't pretend a free vulnerability scanner gives you a complete vulnerability management program” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Vuln management · budget 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.

“relying on free/open-source (FOSS) vulnerability scanners for a corporate environment is often advised against” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · hard negative

“basic open-source scanners (like OpenVAS/Greenbone) ... Why to avoid them for enterprise VM” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · hard negative

“it requires significant manual effort and expertise to configure and maintain effectively. It may lack the support and advanced features of commercial platforms.” Kimi K2 · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

“High false positives; performance overhead; limited zero-day/advanced threat detection; inconsistent results.” Grok 4.20 · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OpenVAS, over the 67 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OpenVAS was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Qualys VMDR33 of 674Not among the top eight

Tenable Nessus33 of 672Not among the top eight

Intruder31 of 6714Not among the top eight

Rapid7 InsightVM30 of 673Not among the top eight

Tenable Vulnerability Management27 of 673Not among the top eight

ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus19 of 675Not among the top eight

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management12 of 672Not among the top eight

Wiz8 of 672Not among the top eight

Nuclei7 of 670Not among the top eight

ESET Vulnerability & Patch Management6 of 671Not 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 OpenVAS. 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 58 of the 67 answers that named OpenVAS and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

vicarius.io26

g2.com21

techrepublic.com21

orca.security20

axis-intelligence.com18

comparitech.com17

getastra.com17

upguard.com17

riskwatch.com16

beaglesecurity.com14

187 of the 187 domain citations in answers naming OpenVAS came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

orca.security/resources/blog/best-vulnerability-management-tools19

techrepublic.com/article/top-vulnerability-management-tools19

axis-intelligence.com/best-vulnerability-management-tools-tested18

riskwatch.com/vulnerability-management-software16

upguard.com/blog/top-vendor-vulnerability-tools16

motadata.com/blog/vulnerability-management-tools13

comparitech.com/net-admin/best-vulnerability-management-tools12

pdq.com/blog/best-vulnerability-management-tools12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

openvas.org is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, OpenVAS takes 4% of first choices and Rapid7 InsightVM takes 30%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “vulnerability management platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “vulnerability management platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 3,600 a month (“openvas”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 229 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 3,099 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 246 · 40 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 3,402
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on Google

None found in Google's ad transparency records for the US

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 9 of 77 in vuln management

Segment leader

30%

Rapid7 InsightVM

First choices: 6 across its categories
Named in: 67 answers
Its own site cited: in 58 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.

Names read as OpenVAS

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

OpenVAS/Greenbone 3Greenbone Community Edition (OpenVAS) 2Greenbone 1Greenbone Community Edition 1Greenbone Community Edition (formerly OpenVAS) 1Greenbone Community Edition / OpenVAS 1Greenbone/OpenVAS 1OpenVAS (Greenbone) 1OpenVAS (now Greenbone Community Edition) 1

Follow OpenVAS

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

OpenVAS is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: a full-featured vulnerability scanner
openvas.org
Not stated on the pages read: Who it is for, price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers

What OpenVAS's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: openvas.org. 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 OpenVAS'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 OpenVAS, 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 OpenVAS by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where OpenVAS 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 OpenVAS, 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.