Index › IT › Security operations › AI SOC agents › CrowdStrike Charlotte AI vs Radiant Security
AI SOC agents · November 2026 Edition

CrowdStrike Charlotte AI vs Radiant Security

One of fourteen models named CrowdStrike Charlotte AI first on the direct prompt; one named Radiant Security. CrowdStrike Charlotte AI was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Radiant Security by ten and CrowdStrike Charlotte AI carries 28 labels and Radiant Security 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.

CrowdStrike Charlotte AI

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

Radiant Security

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate18%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2816A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, CrowdStrike Charlotte AI reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Dropzone AI was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Dropzone AI vs CrowdStrike Charlotte AI · Dropzone AI vs Radiant Security · UnderDefense Agentic AI SOC vs CrowdStrike Charlotte AI

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the AI SOC agents page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
CrowdStrike Charlotte AIFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRadiant Security
Direct11
Paraphrase002 against CrowdStrike Charlotte AI · 1 against Radiant Security
Comparative00
Budget-constrained002 against CrowdStrike Charlotte AI
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against CrowdStrike Charlotte AI
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where CrowdStrike Charlotte AI and Radiant Security stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
CrowdStrike Charlotte AI Radiant Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CrowdStrike Charlotte AI on the left and Radiant Security on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CrowdStrike Charlotte AI and Radiant Security stood in it.

CrowdStrike Charlotte AI first, Radiant Security not the choice

1 of 14 modelsRadiant Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniCrowdStrike Charlotte AI alternatives: Google Security Operations' agentic SOC, Microsoft Security Copilot

Radiant Security first, CrowdStrike Charlotte AI not the choice

1 of 14 modelsCrowdStrike Charlotte AI was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Claude Haiku 4.5Radiant Security, UnderDefense MAXI alternatives: Arctic Wolf, Dropzone AI

Neither was the first choice, one was named

6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashDropzone AI, Prophet Security alternatives: CrowdStrike Charlotte AI, Intezer AI SOC, Microsoft Security Copilot, SentinelOne Purple AI, Torq AI SOC Platform
Perplexity SonarArctic Wolf Aurora Agentic SOC alternatives: Dropzone AI, Intezer AI SOC, Microsoft Security Copilot, Radiant Security, Torq AI SOC Platform
Qwen 3.7 FlashDropzone AI alternatives: CrowdStrike Charlotte AI, Microsoft Security Copilot, Torq AI SOC Platform, UnderDefense Agentic AI SOC
Kimi K2Dropzone AI alternatives: Huntress Managed EDR, Radiant Security, UnderDefense MAXI
MiniMax M2.5UnderDefense Agentic AI SOC alternatives: Arctic Wolf, Dropzone AI, Radiant Security, eSentire
Muse Glimmer 30BUnderDefense Agentic AI SOC alternatives: Arctic Wolf, Conifers CognitiveSOC, CrowdStrike Charlotte AI, Intezer AI SOC, Microsoft Security Copilot, eSentire

Neither was named

6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Grok 4.20Dropzone AI alternatives: Microsoft Security Copilot + Sentinel, Torq AI SOC Platform, UnderDefense Agentic AI SOC
Mistral SmallDropzone AI alternatives: Microsoft Security Copilot, SentinelOne Singularity Endpoint, Torq AI SOC Platform
DeepSeek V4 FlashUnderDefense Agentic AI SOC alternatives: Arctic Wolf, Dropzone AI
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
GLM 4.7 FlashXConifers CognitiveSOC alternatives: Dropzone AI, Microsoft Security Copilot
GPT-6 LunaDropzone AI alternatives: Google Security Operations, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Sentinel

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Radiant Security leads by two points.
Radiant Security2%#– of 12
CrowdStrike Charlotte AI0%#11 of 12
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
CrowdStrike Charlotte AI2%#5 of 10
Radiant Security2%#7 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: CrowdStrike Charlotte AI leads at enterprise.
CrowdStrike Charlotte AI8%#2 of 13
Radiant Security0%#– of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about CrowdStrike Charlotte AI

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Avoid or deprioritize high-end ones like ... CrowdStrike Charlotte AI” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“products like CrowdStrike Charlotte AI were showing 0% first-choice share in that edition with limited labels” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“generally less specialized/autonomous than the pure-play startups above for a standalone mid-sized setup” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“I'd lean CrowdStrike Charlotte AI if you already use CrowdStrike for endpoint/identity/cloud security” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
“If your endpoint protection is dominated by Falcon, Charlotte AI provides deep visibility and automated response capabilities” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · alternative
“| 4 | CrowdStrike Charlotte AI | 0% but strong presence | Trained on elite analyst judgment, ecosystem-native |” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · alternative

What the models said about Radiant Security

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.

“Older or acquired players (e.g., Radiant Security's tech now under Cribl) have faded as standalone options.” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“It's the most purpose-built AI SOC platform for the mid-market on this list” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“starts at approximately $1,188/year with flat-rate pricing for growing teams, making it one of the most affordable options” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · alternative
“agentic triage that integrates with existing SIEM/EDR, designed for augmentation without rip-and-replace” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.