AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Products › OWASP Amass · October 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

OWASP Amass

9Judge labels
1First choices
0Negative labels
6 / 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
5 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. OWASP Amass was named 5 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.
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 OWASP Amass 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
Attack surface managementSecurity operations2%9 of 1000%5under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 49%▲+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, OWASP Amass 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 83 → 23 of 93
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 21 → 9 of 98

All categories · Mid-market

CategorySeptember 2026NowChangeReadingRank
ASM0%2%▲+2Since September 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.Within noiseRank 21 → 9 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 OWASP Amass across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash01001
Perplexity Sonar00000
Grok 4.2010001
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00101
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash00000
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX00101
MiniMax M2.500101
GPT-6 Luna00000
Muse Glimmer 30B00000

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-constrained9 labels1
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative9 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.

“the best attack surface management (ASM) platform is likely OWASP Amass, a free, open-source tool” Grok 4.20 · ASM · budget prompt · first choice
“OWASP Amass & ProjectDiscovery Subfinder (Asset Discovery): Both are industry-standard” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as OWASP Amass, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and OWASP Amass was named but was not.
ShowHide
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
Intruder8 of 93Not among the top eight
Attaxion7 of 95Not among the top eight
Nuclei5 of 90Not among the top eight
Shodan5 of 90Not among the top eight
Subfinder5 of 90Not among the top eight
Cortex Xpanse4 of 90Not among the top eight
Detectify4 of 90Not among the top eight
Nmap4 of 90Not among the top eight
CyCognito3 of 90Not 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 OWASP Amass. 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 9 of the 9 answers that named OWASP Amass and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

attaxion.com9
itechguides.com5
scanreview.io5
thectoclub.com5
circleid.com4
guideflow.com4
intruder.io4
slashdot.org4
sn1persecurity.com4
sourceforge.net4

Forty-eight of the forty-eight domain citations in answers naming OWASP Amass came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

owasp.org is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, OWASP Amass takes 2% 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
210 a month (“owasp amass”)
AI search demand for its name, est.
5 a month
Organic visits to its site
about 365,222 a month
Searches its site ranks for
104,405 · 3,003 in the top three
Sites linking to it
65,251
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
2%
rank 9 of 100 in ASM
Segment leader
49%
Intruder
First choices
1 across its categories
Named in
9 answers
Its own site cited
in 9 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 owasp.org
893
subdomains included
Content
154
counted in the table below
Documentation
1
Product · Integration
30 · 216
KindPagesLast 90 days2025-10 to 2026-09LatestCategories named
Blog8602025-08-05
Conference or event3502025-11-14
News or press1802024-11-20
Webinar or virtual event702026-05-13
Podcast or video4undated
Template or tool302024-05-08
Glossary or explainer1undated

Most recent

Events in person

Upcoming
Last twelve months

As the event pages on owasp.org state them, read September 28, 2026.

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page owasp.org 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 OWASP Amass

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as OWASP Amass; a claim can dispute any of them.
Amass 2

Follow OWASP Amass

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.

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 OWASP Amass'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 OWASP Amass, 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 OWASP Amass by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

  • where OWASP Amass 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 OWASP Amass, 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.
The subscriber app

A verification link goes to your work email; an address at owasp.org is approved on the spot, any other is reviewed by hand. Your email is never published. Claiming gives no say over labels, shares, verdicts or which quotes appear.