Every category where a model named Rapid7 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%	34 of 80	38%	13	criticized challenger
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	0%	24 of 76	25%	8	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	16 of 104	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 59%
Cloud security posture management	Cloud and infrastructure	0%	30 of 53	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Wiz at 43%
Data loss prevention	Security operations	0%	61 of 84	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Purview DLP at 39%
Endpoint protection	IT operations and endpoint	0%	87 of 99	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Cloud at 22%
Extended detection and response	Security operations	0%	54 of 61	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender XDR at 63%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	1	0	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	0	2	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	2	2	6
Mistral Small	0	2	2	0	4
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	2	1	5
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1	0	2

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

Direct10 labelsNone

Paraphrase7 labelsNone

Comparative29 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained15 labelsNone

Scale-constrained13 labelsNone

Negative17 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative91 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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.

“Rapid7 masters the PTaaS model by providing expert consultation through a cloud-based approach that combines expert-led testing with live results” Claude Haiku 4.5 · PTaaS · comparative prompt · first choice

“the top vulnerability management platforms are Tenable, Qualys, and Rapid7” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Vuln management · comparative prompt · first choice

“If budget is a key constraint: Rapid7 offers strong value and is purpose-built for mid-market needs.” MiniMax M2.5 · CSPM · direct prompt · alternative

“Offers modular exposure management and is suitable for those with a limited budget” Mistral Small · 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.

“Missed 30+ attacks (93-94% protection); limited enterprise scalability.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · hard negative

“InsightVM requires "Security Consoles" and "Scan Engines" that can be notoriously resource-intensive.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

“Higher cost (often $20k‑$50k+ per engagement); less suited for continuous/subscription models” GLM 4.7 FlashX · PTaaS · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“its reporting interface and discovery features are often criticized for being less intuitive” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Vuln management · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Rapid7, over the 91 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Rapid7 was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Qualys41 of 911Not in the top three

Tenable40 of 917Not in the top three

Wiz23 of 914Not in the top three

Intruder18 of 919Not in the top three

Cobalt18 of 915Not in the top three

Synack18 of 913Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management17 of 913Not in the top three

NetSPI15 of 916Not in the top three

Bishop Fox15 of 911Not in the top three

CrowdStrike14 of 910Not 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. 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 67 of the 91 answers that named Rapid7 and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

techrepublic.com20

gartner.com19

expertinsights.com17

synack.com17

underdefense.com17

upguard.com16

deepstrike.io15

riskwatch.com14

beaglesecurity.com13

guideflow.com13

161 of the 161 domain citations in answers naming Rapid7 came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

riskwatch.com/vulnerability-management-software14

axis-intelligence.com/best-vulnerability-management-tools-tested12

techrepublic.com/article/top-vulnerability-management-tools10

expertinsights.com/security-operations/the-top-vulnerability-management-solutions9

orca.security/resources/blog/best-vulnerability-management-tools9

synack.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies9

techrepublic.com/article/best-penetration-testing-companies9

clutch.co/it-services/cybersecurity/penetration-testing8

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Rapid7

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

Rapid7 (InsightVM) 3Rapid7 (AttackSurface) 1Rapid7 (InsightVM / Insight Platform) 1Rapid7 (InsightVM / InsightConnect) 1Rapid7 (InsightVM / Nexpose) 1RapidSeven 1Tenable/Rapid7 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'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, 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.