Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
Attaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Zero of fourteen models named Attaxion first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. Attaxion was named by twelve of the fourteen models and Tenable Attack Surface Management by fourteen and Attaxion carries 20 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share19%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels2022A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Attaxion reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Intruder vs Attaxion · Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management · Attaxion vs CyCognito
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 attack surface management page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AttaxionFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct00
Paraphrase111 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Comparative00
Budget-constrained90
Scale-constrained001 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Negative001 against Attaxion · 2 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
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 Attaxion and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | |
Attaxion Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Attaxion on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Attaxion and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Intruder alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Surface, CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, Tenable Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
MiniMax M2.5Intruder alternatives: Attaxion, Halo Security
Neither was named
12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniCensys ASM alternatives: IONIX, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Gemini 3.5 FlashCyCognito alternatives: Censys ASM, Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Perplexity SonarIntruder alternatives: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Grok 4.20Intruder alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Mistral SmallCyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Censys ASM, Dive, Rapid7
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, SynScan
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, SecurityScorecard
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CyCognito
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
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
Attaxion leads by nineteen points.
Attaxion19%#2 of 14Tenable Attack Surface Management0%#12 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Attaxion leads by seventeen points.
Attaxion19%#2 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#8 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Tenable Attack Surface Management leads at enterprise.
Tenable Attack Surface Management7%#3 of 10Attaxion0%#– of 10What the models said about Attaxion
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Some newer tools (like Attaxion) lack integrations with ticketing systems and messaging platforms” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“For a small monthly budget ($100-350), Attaxion offers the best value with automated vulnerability scanning and continuous monitoring” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Best Overall Value: Attaxion ... frequently cited as the best balance of price and performance for SMBs and startups.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Attaxion Starter at $129/mo for up to 40 assets is widely cited as the most affordable full EASM offering” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Tenable Attack Surface Management
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“economically attractive when you already use the corresponding ecosystem, but avoid assuming that an existing EDR or vulnerability-management deployment automatically provides complete external discovery” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“they can feel complex and expensive for mid-sized teams (better suited to enterprises with dedicated resources)” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Users note room for improvement in integration with other tools” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“I'd usually recommend Tenable One Attack Surface Management as the default starting point” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Tenable One Attack Surface Management link external findings to existing vulnerability and exposure management workflows” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative prompt · alternative
“suits organizations that have already invested in the Tenable vulnerability management ecosystem” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Intruder vs AttaxionIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs CyCognitoAttaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs Censys ASMAttaxion vs UpGuard BreachSightAttaxion vs Cortex XpanseCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCensys ASM vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementUpGuard BreachSight vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCortex Xpanse vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full ASM standing
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.