Breach and attack simulation · November 2026 Edition
AttackIQ Flex vs AttackIQ
Zero of fourteen models named AttackIQ Flex first on the direct prompt; zero named AttackIQ. AttackIQ Flex was named by eight of the fourteen models and AttackIQ by fourteen and AttackIQ Flex carries 10 labels and AttackIQ 47, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share13%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate10%19%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels1047A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, AttackIQ Flex reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Picus Security Validation Platform was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cymulate vs AttackIQ Flex · Cymulate vs AttackIQ · Picus Security Validation Platform vs AttackIQ Flex
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 breach and attack simulation page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AttackIQ FlexFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAttackIQ
Direct002 against AttackIQ
Paraphrase01
Comparative02
Budget-constrained711 against AttackIQ Flex · 1 against AttackIQ
Scale-constrained00
Negative106 against AttackIQ
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 AttackIQ Flex and AttackIQ 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 | | |
AttackIQ Flex AttackIQ first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, AttackIQ Flex on the left and AttackIQ on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where AttackIQ Flex and AttackIQ stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Perplexity SonarCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, Horizon3.ai NodeZero, Picus Security Validation Platform
DeepSeek V4 FlashCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, Picus Security Validation Platform
Qwen 3.7 FlashPicus Security Validation Platform alternatives: AttackIQ, SafeBreach
Kimi K2Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform alternatives: AttackIQ, Pentera
GLM 4.7 FlashXCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreach
GPT-6 LunaCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ Flex, Picus Security Validation Platform
Muse Glimmer 30BCymulate alternatives: AttackIQ, Picus Security Validation Platform
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Cymulate alternatives: Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, Validato
GPT-5.4 miniCymulate alternatives: Picus Security Validation Platform
Gemini 3.5 FlashCymulate alternatives: Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform
Grok 4.20Cymulate alternatives: Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform
Mistral SmallCymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform alternatives: Pentera, Sakeon
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
MiniMax M2.5Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform alternatives: Pentera
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
AttackIQ Flex leads by eighteen points.
AttackIQ Flex18%#2 of 11AttackIQ0%#10 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
AttackIQ Flex leads by nine points.
AttackIQ Flex13%#3 of 13AttackIQ4%#6 of 13Enterprise
The order flips: AttackIQ leads at enterprise.
AttackIQ15%#3 of 8AttackIQ Flex2%#– of 8What the models said about AttackIQ Flex
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“The $0 tier is quite limited compared to paid options” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · soft negative
“The best breach and attack simulation platform for a company with a limited budget is AttackIQ Flex, as it is available for a published price starting at free.” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“AttackIQ Flex is highlighted as a strong option for those needing real results quickly, with a starting price that begins at free” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
“For a company with a limited budget, AttackIQ Flex is the best starting point.” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about AttackIQ
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Criticisms include potential unsuitability for very large enterprises in some older reviews, and calls for better AI integration or documentation.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“A few (like AttackIQ) have limited free/low-cost tiers, but they don't match the flexibility of open-source” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“questioned suitability for some larger environments. Validate scalability, architecture, and performance” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“AttackIQ is strongly associated with the original BAS category and still emphasizes continuous security control validation” GPT-5.4 mini · comparative prompt · first choice
“Top Pick: AttackIQ (Flex Model) ... widely considered the best option for companies trying to balance cost with functionality” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Choose Cymulate/Picus/SafeBreach/AttackIQ when the priority is continuous, repeatable control validation” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Cymulate vs AttackIQ FlexCymulate vs AttackIQPicus Security Validation Platform vs AttackIQ FlexPicus Security Validation Platform vs AttackIQAttackIQ Flex vs MITRE CalderaAttackIQ Flex vs Atomic Red TeamAttackIQ Flex vs PenteraAttackIQ Flex vs Infection MonkeyMITRE Caldera vs AttackIQAtomic Red Team vs AttackIQAttackIQ vs PenteraAttackIQ vs Infection MonkeyAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full BAS 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.