Index › IT › Security operations › ASM › Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Tenable Attack Surface Management
One of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management first on the direct prompt; zero named Tenable Attack Surface Management. Both were named by all fourteen models and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management carries 56 labels and Tenable Attack Surface Management 22, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share6%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#8A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels5622A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · Intruder vs Tenable Attack Surface Management · Attaxion 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.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTenable Attack Surface Management
Direct10
Paraphrase211 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · 1 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Comparative10
Budget-constrained001 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Scale-constrained001 against Tenable Attack Surface Management
Negative004 against Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management · 2 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.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management and Tenable Attack Surface Management were named in the same answer sixty-six times, of the 161 answers naming Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management and the 81 naming Tenable Attack Surface Management. In those answers Tenable Attack Surface Management took the first choice three times and Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management four.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 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 | | | |
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management Tenable Attack Surface Management first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management on the left and Tenable Attack Surface Management on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management and Tenable Attack Surface Management stood in it.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management first, Tenable Attack Surface Management not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTenable Attack Surface Management 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
9 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
Gemini 3.5 FlashCyCognito alternatives: Censys ASM, Detectify, Microsoft Defender External 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
DeepSeek V4 FlashUpGuard BreachSight alternatives: CyCognito, Intruder, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Kimi K2Intruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management, SynScan
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.Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Censys ASM, Dive, Rapid7
GLM 4.7 FlashXIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, SecurityScorecard
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 14Tenable Attack Surface Management0%#12 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management leads by four points.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management6%#4 of 12Tenable Attack Surface Management2%#8 of 12Enterprise
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management leads by six points.
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management13%#2 of 10Tenable Attack Surface Management7%#3 of 10What 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
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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementIntruder vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementAttaxion vs Tenable Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito vs Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface ManagementCyCognito 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 XpanseCensys 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.