Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
CyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSight
Two of fourteen models named CyCognito first on the direct prompt; one named UpGuard BreachSight. CyCognito was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and UpGuard BreachSight by eleven and CyCognito carries 43 labels and UpGuard BreachSight 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share8%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate14%9%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels4322A 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.Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Intruder vs CyCognito · Intruder vs UpGuard BreachSight · 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 modelsUpGuard BreachSight
Direct211 against CyCognito
Paraphrase11
Comparative10
Budget-constrained001 against CyCognito · 1 against UpGuard BreachSight
Scale-constrained10
Negative004 against CyCognito · 1 against UpGuard BreachSight
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 UpGuard BreachSight were named in the same answer thirty-four times, of the 134 answers naming CyCognito and the 105 naming UpGuard BreachSight. In those answers UpGuard BreachSight took the first choice five times and CyCognito six.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where CyCognito and UpGuard BreachSight 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 UpGuard BreachSight first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CyCognito on the left and UpGuard BreachSight on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CyCognito and UpGuard BreachSight stood in it.
CyCognito first, UpGuard BreachSight an alternative
2 of 14 modelsUpGuard BreachSight 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
UpGuard BreachSight first, CyCognito an alternative
1 of 14 modelsCyCognito was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 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
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
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
Neither was named
4 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
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
UpGuard BreachSight leads by six points.
UpGuard BreachSight6%#4 of 14CyCognito0%#13 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: CyCognito leads at mid-market.
CyCognito8%#3 of 12UpGuard BreachSight4%#6 of 12Enterprise
CyCognito leads by six points.
CyCognito6%#5 of 10UpGuard BreachSight0%#– 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 UpGuard BreachSight
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“UpGuard has been reported to have false positives, limited API functionality, and customization limitations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Offers published entry pricing and a free trial, but may be broader than basic EASM needs.” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies, UpGuard offers the best balance of capability, price, and B2B-relevant features” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Intruder vs CyCognitoIntruder vs UpGuard BreachSightAttaxion vs CyCognitoAttaxion vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs Censys ASMCyCognito vs Cortex XpanseCyCognito vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs UpGuard BreachSightCensys ASM vs UpGuard BreachSightUpGuard BreachSight vs Cortex XpanseUpGuard BreachSight 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.