IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › UnderDefense · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

UnderDefense

23Judge labels

2First choices

0Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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

Standing

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. UnderDefense was named 8 times in PTaaS and 1 other category, 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 business7 of 57

under the label threshold

Mid-market7 of 76

under the label threshold

Enterprise23 of 73

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 UnderDefense 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
Penetration testing as a service	Security operations	2%	7 of 76	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Cobalt at 44%
Managed detection and response	Security operations	0%	32 of 45	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response at 39%

Movement

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

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

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

Direct7 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative9 labelsNone

Budget-constrained6 labels2

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative23 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 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.

“consider grey-box testing with a provider like BreachLock, UnderDefense, or Kualitatem” Claude Haiku 4.5 · PTaaS · budget prompt · first choice

“Mid‑to‑large enterprises with hybrid/multi‑vendor setups; agentic‑AI SOC layered on existing tools.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · MDR · comparative prompt · alternative

“Choose UnderDefense if budget is a primary concern but you still need quality testing” Kimi K2 · PTaaS · direct prompt · alternative

“repeatedly described as serving SMBs with more affordable or accessible offerings” Perplexity Sonar · PTaaS · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as UnderDefense, over the 23 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and UnderDefense was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Cobalt14 of 235Not in the top three

BreachLock13 of 232Not in the top three

Astra Security10 of 232Not in the top three

NetSPI5 of 233Not in the top three

Bugcrowd5 of 231Not in the top three

HackerOne5 of 230Not in the top three

Synack5 of 230Not in the top three

Bishop Fox4 of 230Not in the top three

Intruder4 of 230Not in the top three

Packetlabs4 of 230Not 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 UnderDefense. 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 23 of the 23 answers that named UnderDefense and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

underdefense.comYour site18

deepstrike.io13

synack.com12

techrepublic.com10

defendify.com9

brightdefense.com7

g2.com7

getastra.com7

soc2auditors.org7

softwaresecured.com7

Seventy-nine of the ninety-seven domain citations in answers naming UnderDefense came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

underdefense.com/blog/penetration-testing-services14

synack.com/blog/best-penetration-testing-companies12

deepstrike.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-companies9

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

deepstrike.io/blog/top-penetration-testing-as-a-service-ptaas8

defendify.com/blog/penetration-testing-companies8

terra.security/blog/top-10-penetration-testing-as-a-service-ptaas-providers7

clutch.co/it-services/cybersecurity/penetration-testing6

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 UnderDefense'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 UnderDefense, 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 underdefense.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.