Attack surface management · November 2026 Edition
UpGuard BreachSight vs Cortex Xpanse
One of fourteen models named UpGuard BreachSight first on the direct prompt; zero named Cortex Xpanse. UpGuard BreachSight was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Cortex Xpanse by twelve and UpGuard BreachSight carries 22 labels and Cortex Xpanse 31, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share4%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate9%45%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels2231A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, UpGuard BreachSight 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 UpGuard BreachSight · Intruder vs Cortex Xpanse · Attaxion vs UpGuard BreachSight
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.
UpGuard BreachSightFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCortex Xpanse
Direct105 against Cortex Xpanse
Paraphrase113 against Cortex Xpanse
Comparative06
Budget-constrained001 against UpGuard BreachSight · 1 against Cortex Xpanse
Scale-constrained012 against Cortex Xpanse
Negative001 against UpGuard BreachSight · 3 against Cortex Xpanse
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, UpGuard BreachSight and Cortex Xpanse were named in the same answer twenty-five times, of the 105 answers naming UpGuard BreachSight and the 119 naming Cortex Xpanse. In those answers Cortex Xpanse took the first choice seven times and UpGuard BreachSight three.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where UpGuard BreachSight and Cortex Xpanse 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 | |
UpGuard BreachSight Cortex Xpanse first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, UpGuard BreachSight on the left and Cortex Xpanse on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where UpGuard BreachSight and Cortex Xpanse stood in it.
UpGuard BreachSight first, Cortex Xpanse not the choice
1 of 14 modelsCortex Xpanse 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
3 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
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
Neither was named
10 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
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
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Censys ASM, Dive, Rapid7
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
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management alternatives: Censys ASM, CyCognito
Muse Glimmer 30BIntruder alternatives: CyCognito, Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
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 14Cortex Xpanse0%#14 of 14Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
UpGuard BreachSight4%#6 of 12Cortex Xpanse4%#7 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Cortex Xpanse leads at enterprise.
Cortex Xpanse44%#1 of 10UpGuard BreachSight0%#– of 10What 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
What the models said about Cortex Xpanse
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“What to Avoid ... Enterprise-focused; ~$95,000/year starting price” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise tools like Palo Alto Cortex Xpanse, Censys, and Mandiant ASM are powerful but often assume six-figure budgets” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
“General high-cost or complex platforms (e.g., Cortex Xpanse, Mandiant ASM, CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management)” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strong in automated discovery, risk prioritization, and response. Excellent for broad internet-facing assets and integrations.” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · first choice
“A leading Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) tool, recognized as a Leader in Forrester's 2024 ASM Wave.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · first choice
“Cortex Xpanse represents the enterprise benchmark for internet-scale external attack surface management” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Intruder vs UpGuard BreachSightIntruder vs Cortex XpanseAttaxion vs UpGuard BreachSightAttaxion vs Cortex XpanseCyCognito vs UpGuard BreachSightCyCognito vs Cortex XpanseMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs UpGuard BreachSightMicrosoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Cortex XpanseCensys ASM vs UpGuard BreachSightCensys ASM vs Cortex XpanseUpGuard 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.