Every category where a model named SafeBreach 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
Breach and attack simulation	Security operations	0%	20 of 74	33%	46	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SafeBreach yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

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

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

Direct28 labels4

Paraphrase14 labels3

Comparative35 labels6not counted in share

Budget-constrained19 labels4

Scale-constrained16 labels3

Negative32 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative144 labels in all, every segment counted; 14 of the 20 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.

“Choose Cymulate or SafeBreach if you want a reliable, easy-to-use, and highly visible metric of overall security posture” Gemini 3.5 Flash · BAS · comparative prompt · first choice

“### 1. SafeBreach - Best for: Large enterprises needing broad, continuous BAS with extensive customization” Kimi K2 · BAS · comparative prompt · first choice

“Extensive attack playbooks, strong for purple-team exercises | Slower deployment (1-2 weeks+); higher minimum cost” DeepSeek V4 Flash · BAS · scale prompt · alternative

“Choose SafeBreach if you have a massive, diverse environment (Cloud, OT, AD)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · BAS · comparative 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.

“Avoid if you are not a large enterprise with a mature security operations team and a six-figure budget for security validation.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · BAS · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid: AttackIQ and SafeBreach tend to be priced higher” Kimi K2 · BAS · direct prompt · hard negative

“some reviewers have noted that the deployment can be complex, and configuring custom multi-stage scenarios can occasionally feel rigid or buggy” Gemini 3.5 Flash · BAS · negative prompt · soft negative

“don't publish pricing and typically start at $30,000-$50,000+ annually, which may be prohibitive for smaller organizations” Kimi K2 · BAS · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as SafeBreach, over the 144 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SafeBreach was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cymulate132 of 14436Not among the top eight

Picus Security Validation Platform110 of 14415Not among the top eight

AttackIQ109 of 14414Not among the top eight

Pentera77 of 1443Not among the top eight

XM Cyber40 of 1441Not among the top eight

Mandiant Security Validation27 of 1441Not among the top eight

Horizon3.ai NodeZero23 of 1448Not among the top eight

NodeZero20 of 1448Not among the top eight

Infection Monkey13 of 1446Not among the top eight

AttackIQ Flex11 of 1448Not 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 SafeBreach. 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 137 of the 144 answers that named SafeBreach and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

startupstash.com93

picussecurity.com90

guideflow.com84

g2.com58

adaptivesecurity.com57

csoonline.com57

cymulate.com51

peerspot.com51

gbhackers.com50

techtarget.com48

639 of the 639 domain citations in answers naming SafeBreach came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

startupstash.com/best-breach-and-attack-simulation-tools93

guideflow.com/blog/breach-and-attack-simulation-software80

adaptivesecurity.com/blog/top-bas-platforms-to-strengthen-security-in-202556

csoonline.com/article/2132289/breach-and-attack-simulation-tools.html56

peerspot.com/categories/breach-and-attack-simulation-bas42

esecurityplanet.com/products/breach-and-attack-simulation-bas-vendors39

guptadeepak.com/tools/top-5-breach-attack-simulation-tools-202638

gbhackers.com/best-breach-and-attack-simulation-bas-vendors34

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

safebreach.com ranks first on Google for the category's searches. In the answers, SafeBreach takes 0% of first choices and Cymulate takes 24%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “breach and attack simulation platform”

Position for “breach and attack simulation platforms”

Searches for its name, Google: 480 a month (“safebreach”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 3 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 1,058 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 395 · 10 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 2,644
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

32 ads · 28 text, 4 image · 8 shown in the last 30 days

First shown October 2024, as SafeBreach Inc, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 18 in the year, 14 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 20 of 74 in BAS

Segment leader

24%

Cymulate

First choices: 14 across its categories
Named in: 144 answers
Its own site cited: in 137 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 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 safebreach.com

1,547

subdomains included

Content

1,125

counted in the table below

Documentation

213

Product · Integration

3 · 21

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	458	8	2026-09-23	EDR, XDR
News or press	359	2	2026-07-28	EDR, MFA
Podcast or video	140	17	2026-09-17
Webinar or virtual event	63	1	2026-07-27
Conference or event	32	0	2025-11-19
Report or ebook	28	0	2026-06-24	SASE
Glossary or explainer	25	6	2026-08-04
Case study	16	1	2026-09-22
Comparison	4	0	2026-02-23

Most recent

2026-09-23Google ai breach proves continuous validation blog
2026-09-22Fortune 50 energy ot security validation case study case study
2026-09-18Ai powered ransomware attacks ciso response blog
2026-09-17Iran cognitive warfare command room ai propaganda podcast or video
2026-09-17Safebreach coverage for chosen brick iranian spyware advisory blog
2026-09-16Ai harness never checked its work podcast or video

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page safebreach.com 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 SafeBreach

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

SafeBreach / SafeBreach Validate 1

Follow SafeBreach

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

SafeBreach is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: the leading exposure validation platform, combining breach and attack simulation with attack path validation
safebreach.com
For: enterprise customers
safebreach.com
Customers named: Husch BlackwellFortune 50 Energy ProviderFortune 500 Energy ProviderFortune 500 Biotechnology CompanySoftServe Inc.CarlsbergLeading Health Insurance ProviderFortune 500 Biopharmaceutical Company
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting

What SafeBreach's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: safebreach.com, safebreach.com/company/newsroom/https/wwwtechradarcom/pro/security/windows-kernel-components-can-be-installed-to-bypass-defense-systems, safebreach.com/product/use-mitre-attcktm-for-stronger-security, safebreach.com/case-studies, safebreach.com/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 SafeBreach'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 SafeBreach, 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 SafeBreach by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where SafeBreach 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 SafeBreach, 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.