Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
Intruder vs CyCognito
Eight of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; two named CyCognito. Intruder was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and CyCognito by thirteen and Intruder carries 30 labels and CyCognito 43, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share29%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%14%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3043A 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 Attaxion · 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 modelsCyCognito
Direct821 against CyCognito
Paraphrase61
Comparative01
Budget-constrained001 against CyCognito
Scale-constrained11
Negative204 against CyCognito
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 Intruder and CyCognito 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 | | | | |
Intruder CyCognito first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and CyCognito on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and CyCognito stood in it.
Both were the first choice
1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.Mistral SmallCyCognito, Intruder alternatives: Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Intruder first, CyCognito an alternative
7 of 14 modelsCyCognito 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
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
CyCognito first, Intruder not the choice
1 of 14 modelsIntruder 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
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 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
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CyCognito
Neither was named
2 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
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 thirty-five points.
Intruder35%#1 of 14CyCognito0%#13 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Intruder leads by twenty-one points.
Intruder29%#1 of 12CyCognito8%#3 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: CyCognito leads at enterprise.
CyCognito6%#5 of 10Intruder0%#– of 10What 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 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
Also compared
Intruder vs AttaxionIntruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs Censys ASMIntruder vs UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs Cortex XpanseIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs CyCognitoCyCognito vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs Censys ASMCyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs Cortex XpanseCyCognito 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.