Index › Vendors › ThreatScope · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

ThreatScope

10Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative 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

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ThreatScope was named 6 times in ASM, where Intruder led with 59%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business18 of 96

under the label threshold

Mid-market17 of 104

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

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 ThreatScope 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
Attack surface management	Security operations	0%	17 of 104	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by Intruder at 59%

Movement

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

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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative1 labelNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 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.

“Continuous EASM and threat validation built specifically for mid-market organizations, at a fraction of enterprise pricing.” Llama 4 Maverick · ASM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“ThreatScope is specifically called out as a mid-market-priced option with guidance” Perplexity Sonar · ASM · direct prompt · alternative

“Attaxion Plus ($349/mo) or ThreatScope Professional | Full features, reasonable price” Kimi K2 · ASM · budget prompt · alternative

“Part of the mid-market pricing tier” MiniMax M2.5 · ASM · direct 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 ThreatScope, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ThreatScope was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Intruder10 of 106Not in the top three

Attaxion8 of 101Not in the top three

Detectify7 of 100Not in the top three

Bitsight3 of 100Not in the top three

Cortex Xpanse3 of 100Not in the top three

CyCognito3 of 100Not in the top three

IBM Randori3 of 100Not in the top three

Censys ASM2 of 100Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management2 of 100Not in the top three

Aikido Security1 of 100Not 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 ThreatScope. 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 10 of the 10 answers that named ThreatScope and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cyberbench.net10

synack.com8

upguard.com7

g2.com5

bitsight.com4

attaxion.com3

heimdalsecurity.com3

paloaltonetworks.com3

guideflow.com2

intruder.io2

No domain is on file for ThreatScope, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

cyberbench.net/blog/best-easm-platforms-mid-market-202610

synack.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-tools8

upguard.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software-solutions7

bitsight.com/guides/best-external-attack-surface-management-platforms-for-global-enterpris4

attaxion.com/top-external-attack-surface-management-vendors3

heimdalsecurity.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software3

paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/asm-tools-comparison3

g2.com/categories/attack-surface-management/enterprise2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as ThreatScope

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

ThreatScope (by VISO Group) 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 ThreatScope'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 ThreatScope, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.