Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Eight of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. Intruder was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Tenable Attack Surface Management by fourteen and Intruder carries 30 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share29%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#8A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels3022A 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 CyCognito · Intruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
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 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct80
Paraphrase611 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Comparative00
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained101 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Negative202 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 Intruder 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 | | | | |
Intruder Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
Intruder first, Tenable Attack Surface Management an alternative
8 of 14 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management 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 thirty-five points.
Intruder35%#1 of 14Tenable Attack Surface Management0%#12 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Intruder leads by twenty-seven points.
Intruder29%#1 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#8 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Tenable Attack Surface Management leads at enterprise.
Tenable Attack Surface Management7%#3 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 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 CyCognitoIntruder vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs Censys ASMIntruder vs UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs Cortex XpanseAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito 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.