Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › IT › Security operations › ASM › Intruder vs Attaxion
Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition

Intruder vs Attaxion

Eight of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; zero named Attaxion. Intruder was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Attaxion by twelve and Intruder carries 30 labels and Attaxion 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Intruder

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

Attaxion

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share29%19%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%5%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#2A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3020A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Intruder 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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · Intruder vs Censys ASM

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.
IntruderFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAttaxion
Direct80
Paraphrase61
Comparative00
Budget-constrained09
Scale-constrained10
Negative201 against Attaxion
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, Intruder and Attaxion were named in the same answer forty-two times, of the 298 answers naming Intruder and the 61 naming Attaxion. In those answers Attaxion took the first choice thirteen times and Intruder fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Intruder and Attaxion 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
Intruder Attaxion first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and Attaxion on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and Attaxion stood in it.

Intruder first, Attaxion an alternative

8 of 14 modelsAttaxion was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
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
Mistral SmallCyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, SynScan
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, SecurityScorecard
MiniMax M2.5Intruder alternatives: Attaxion, Halo Security
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management

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.
GPT-5.4 miniCensys ASM alternatives: IONIX, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management

Neither was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Gemini 3.5 FlashCyCognito alternatives: Censys ASM, Detectify, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, UpGuard BreachSight
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Censys ASM, Dive, Rapid7
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CyCognito

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
Intruder leads by seventeen points.
Intruder35%#1 of 14
Attaxion19%#2 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Intruder leads by ten points.
Intruder29%#1 of 12
Attaxion19%#2 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Intruder0%#– of 10
Attaxion0%#– of 10
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Intruder

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

“Intruder is the clear leader with 49% first-choice share... That is the current model-consensus pick for general mid-market suitability.” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
“For most mid-sized B2B companies, Intruder.io offers the best balance of affordability, ease of use, and comprehensive coverage.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“The highest-rated and most consistently recommended platforms based on my research include Intruder, Wiz, and Aikido Security” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · first choice

What 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
Also compared
Intruder vs CyCognitoIntruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs Censys ASMIntruder vs UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs Cortex XpanseIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs CyCognitoAttaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs Censys ASMAttaxion vs UpGuard BreachSightAttaxion vs Cortex XpanseAttaxion 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.