Index › IT › Security operations › ASM › CyCognito vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
CyCognito vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Two of fourteen models named CyCognito first on the direct prompt; one named Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management. CyCognito was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management by fourteen and CyCognito carries 43 labels and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 56, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share8%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate14%11%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#4A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels4356A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, CyCognito reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Intruder was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Intruder vs CyCognito · Intruder vs Microsoft Defender External 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.
CyCognitoFirst choices, of fourteen modelsMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Direct211 against CyCognito
Paraphrase121 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Comparative11
Budget-constrained001 against CyCognito · 1 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Scale-constrained10
Negative004 against CyCognito · 4 against Microsoft Defender External 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.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, CyCognito and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management were named in the same answer 106 times, of the 134 answers naming CyCognito and the 161 naming Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management. In those answers Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management took the first choice eight times and CyCognito twelve.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where CyCognito and Microsoft Defender External 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 | | | |
CyCognito Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CyCognito on the left and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CyCognito and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management stood in it.
CyCognito first, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management an alternative
2 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashCyCognito alternatives: Censys ASM, Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Mistral SmallCyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management first, CyCognito an alternative
1 of 14 modelsCyCognito was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CyCognito
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 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
GPT-5.4 miniCensys ASM alternatives: IONIX, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
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
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, SynScan
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, SecurityScorecard
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Neither was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Censys ASM, Dive, Rapid7
MiniMax M2.5Intruder alternatives: Attaxion, Halo Security
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
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management leads by two points.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management2%#10 of 14CyCognito0%#13 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: CyCognito leads at mid-market.
CyCognito8%#3 of 12Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management6%#4 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management leads at enterprise.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management13%#2 of 10CyCognito6%#5 of 10What the models said about CyCognito
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Users report high false positive rates, slow support, lack of step-by-step remediation guidance, and pricing that's prohibitive for SMBs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“CyCognito can miss assets tied to subsidiaries or recent acquisitions if the connection isn't obvious from public data” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Frequent mentions of false positives... Expensive for SMBs; better for larger enterprises with dedicated teams.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“If you have a dedicated security team: Go with CyCognito. It provides the highest level of technical safety net” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For most modern enterprises, CyCognito and Microsoft EASM are currently leading the market” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Strong candidates to shortlist would be CyCognito (if you have shadow IT complexity)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
What the models said about Microsoft Defender External 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.
“Better suited for organizations heavily invested in Microsoft stack” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Complex to configure (typical Microsoft complexity), generates significant false positives, requires existing Microsoft licensing” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strongly Azure/Microsoft-centric—poor fit if you're not heavily invested in their ecosystem” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“If you already use CrowdStrike or Microsoft 365/Azure: Start a Proof of Concept (PoC) with Microsoft Defender EASM” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“For most modern enterprises, CyCognito and Microsoft EASM are currently leading the market” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management is often the most pragmatic starting point” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared
Intruder vs CyCognitoIntruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs CyCognitoAttaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs Censys ASMCyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs Cortex XpanseCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Censys ASMMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs UpGuard BreachSightMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Cortex XpanseMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 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.