IT AI Index
Index › Vendors › SpecterOps · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

SpecterOps

4Judge labels
0First choices
0Negative labels
3 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
2 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. SpecterOps was named 2 times in PTaaS, where Cobalt led with 44%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small businessnot named
0%
No model named it for this buyer.
Mid-market37 of 76
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprise47 of 73
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
In ptaas · 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 SpecterOps 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 rateLabelsQuadrant
Penetration testing as a serviceSecurity operations0%37 of 760%2under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SpecterOps 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 SpecterOps across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.500000
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00101
Grok 4.1 Fast00000
Mistral Small00000
DeepSeek V4 Flash00000
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash01001
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX00000
MiniMax M2.500000

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
Direct1 labelNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative3 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 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.

“For Complex Logic Issues: Select a boutique firm like SpecterOps” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PTaaS · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as SpecterOps, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SpecterOps was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
NetSPI4 of 43Not in the top three
Bishop Fox4 of 41Not in the top three
Coalfire4 of 41Not in the top three
Cobalt4 of 41Not in the top three
Synack4 of 40Not in the top three
Bugcrowd3 of 40Not in the top three
HackerOne3 of 40Not in the top three
NCC Group3 of 40Not in the top three
Intruder2 of 41Not in the top three
Astra Security2 of 40Not 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 SpecterOps. 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 4 answers that named SpecterOps and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

synack.com4
testriq.com4
clutch.co3
cybri.com3
deepstrike.io3
soc2auditors.org3
stingrai.io3
techrepublic.com3
bdemerson.com2
evulnable.com2

Thirty of the thirty domain citations in answers naming SpecterOps came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

synack.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies4
testriq.com/blog/post/top-penetration-testing-companies4
clutch.co/it-services/cybersecurity/penetration-testing3
cybri.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-vendors3
soc2auditors.org/penetration-testing-firms3
stingrai.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-companies-20263
techrepublic.com/article/best-penetration-testing-companies3
deepstrike.io/blog/penetration-testing-as-a-service-ptaas2

Pages are listed as the models cited 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 SpecterOps'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 SpecterOps, 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 specterops.io 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.

Subscribe to the pack