IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Rapid7 Nexpose · September 2026 Edition

Rapid7 · 1 category · Named, not ranked

Rapid7 Nexpose

5Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Rapid7 Nexpose was named 3 times in Vuln management, where Rapid7 InsightVM led with 45%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market80 of 80

under the label threshold

Enterprise79 of 83

under the label threshold

In vuln management · 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 Rapid7 Nexpose 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
Vulnerability management platforms	Security operations	0%	80 of 80	100%	3	under 10 labels · led by Rapid7 InsightVM at 45%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Rapid7 Nexpose 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 Rapid7 Nexpose across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative5 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“One comparison mentioned some user complaints about Rapid7 Nexpose (OS fingerprinting issues, filtering problems, RBAC limitations)” MiniMax M2.5 · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

“The legacy on-premises scanner with a split cloud/on-prem console that users report as "odd" and frustrating to configure” Kimi K2 · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

“Also showed detection rates ~25% lower than their vulnerability databases suggest” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Rapid7 Nexpose, over the 5 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Rapid7 Nexpose was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Qualys4 of 50Not in the top three

Tenable3 of 50Not in the top three

Tenable Nessus3 of 50Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management2 of 50Not in the top three

OpenVAS2 of 50Not in the top three

Rapid72 of 50Not in the top three

BeyondTrust Retina1 of 50Not in the top three

Bugcrowd1 of 50Not in the top three

Cisco Vulnerability Management1 of 50Not in the top three

CrowdStrike1 of 50Not 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 Rapid7 Nexpose. 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 4 of the 5 answers that named Rapid7 Nexpose and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

axis-intelligence.com2

beaglesecurity.com2

binarly.io2

community.spiceworks.com2

g2.com2

nhimg.org2

orca.security2

peerspot.com2

reddit.com2

technologymatch.com2

Twenty of the twenty domain citations in answers naming Rapid7 Nexpose came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

axis-intelligence.com/best-vulnerability-management-tools-tested2

beaglesecurity.com/blog/article/tenable-vs-qualys-vs-rapid7.html2

binarly.io/articles/vulnerability-management-tools2

community.spiceworks.com/t/rapid7-vs-tenable-security-vulnerability-managment-apps/3510532

orca.security/resources/blog/best-vulnerability-management-tools2

peerspot.com/products/comparisons/qualys-exposure-management_vs_rapid7-insightvm_vs_tenabl2

technologymatch.com/blog/tenable-vs-qualys-vs-rapid7-vm-platform-comparison2

kmlabcw.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/weis/2025/doc/proceedings/WEIS2025_paper_14.pdf1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Rapid7 Nexpose

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Rapid7 Nexpose; a claim can dispute any of them.

Rapid7/Nexpose 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 Rapid7 Nexpose'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 Rapid7 Nexpose, 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 rapid7.com 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.