Breach and attack simulation for enterprise buyers
Asked as “breach and attack simulation platform”, and as “security control validation tool”, on behalf of an enterprise B2B company. 60 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, fourteen models each. Added to the November 2026 Edition.
Standing · first-choice share
27%
Contested · Picus Security Validation Platform 25%
27Cymulate25Picus Security Validation Platform15AttackIQ33others
27% of first choices, contested.
Since October 2026▲+3Since October 2026: 24% → 27%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.Cymulate held the lead, +3 points on 24%, inside the 11-point floor.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment; they sit side by side and are never added together.
Small business
Vanta20%Contested▲+7Since October 2026: 13% → 20%, +7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.Standing →Mid-market
Cymulate35%Contested▲+11Since October 2026: 24% → 35%, +11 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.Standing →EnterpriseCymulate27%Contested▲+3Since October 2026: 24% → 27%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.This page
Vanta20%Contested▲+7Since October 2026: 13% → 20%, +7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.Standing →Mid-marketCymulate35%Contested▲+11Since October 2026: 24% → 35%, +11 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.Standing →EnterpriseCymulate27%Contested▲+3Since October 2026: 24% → 27%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.This pageThe standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all fourteen models, for an enterprise B2B company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince October 2026
01Cymulate27%13%68accepted challenger▲+3Since October 2026: 24% → 27%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.24% → 27%
Cymulate27%13%68accepted challenger▲+3Since October 2026: 24% → 27%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.24% → 27%02
Picus Security Validation Platform25%6%54accepted challenger▲+10Since October 2026: 15% → 25%, +10 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.15% → 25%
Picus Security Validation Platform25%6%54accepted challenger▲+10Since October 2026: 15% → 25%, +10 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.15% → 25%03
AttackIQ15%9%66accepted challenger▼−5Since October 2026: 20% → 15%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.20% → 15%
AttackIQ15%9%66accepted challenger▼−5Since October 2026: 20% → 15%, −5 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.20% → 15%04
SafeBreach15%14%64accepted challenger▼−7Since October 2026: 22% → 15%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.22% → 15%
SafeBreach15%14%64accepted challenger▼−7Since October 2026: 22% → 15%, −7 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.22% → 15%05
Pentera7%18%45accepted challenger=heldSince October 2026: 7% → 7%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.7% → 7%
Pentera7%18%45accepted challenger=heldSince October 2026: 7% → 7%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.7% → 7%06
SCYTHE2%0%10accepted challenger▲+2Since October 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.0% → 2%
SCYTHE2%0%10accepted challenger▲+2Since October 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.0% → 2%Show the two products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
08Mandiant Security Validation0%20%15accepted challenger▼−3Since October 2026: 3% → 0%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.3% → 0%
07
XM Cyber0%9%23accepted challenger▼−2Since October 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.2% → 0%
XM Cyber0%9%23accepted challenger▼−2Since October 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.2% → 0%The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one can't be told apart from repeat variation, and both are shown. Each index measures its own floor from its own repeat, over its own categories, so the floor differs from one index to the next. Both editions asked the same fourteen models. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
For buyers
Head to headHead-to-head pages are published for mid-market buyers, so these open on mid-market figures, not enterprise.
All twenty-eight head-to-head pages: the top eight products, each against each
Cymulate vs Atomic Red TeamCymulate vs AttackIQCymulate vs PenteraCymulate vs Infection MonkeyPicus Security Validation Platform vs AttackIQ FlexPicus Security Validation Platform vs MITRE CalderaPicus Security Validation Platform vs Atomic Red TeamPicus Security Validation Platform vs AttackIQPicus Security Validation Platform vs PenteraPicus Security Validation Platform vs Infection MonkeyAttackIQ Flex vs MITRE CalderaAttackIQ Flex vs Atomic Red TeamAttackIQ Flex vs AttackIQAttackIQ Flex vs PenteraAttackIQ Flex vs Infection MonkeyMITRE Caldera vs Atomic Red TeamMITRE Caldera vs AttackIQMITRE Caldera vs PenteraMITRE Caldera vs Infection MonkeyAtomic Red Team vs AttackIQAtomic Red Team vs PenteraAtomic Red Team vs Infection MonkeyAttackIQ vs PenteraAttackIQ vs Infection MonkeyPentera vs Infection Monkey
Recommended versus criticized
Every product with at least 10 labels here, on both axes. The 30% line names a quadrant, not the verdict above: that one needs more than 40%.
Criticized challengerCriticized default
Negative label rate →
01020304050607M08
Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative40%
Key
01Cymulate27%
Cymulate27%02Picus Security Validation Platform25%
Picus Security Validation Platform25%03AttackIQ15%
AttackIQ15%04SafeBreach15%
SafeBreach15%05Pentera7%
Pentera7%06SCYTHE2%
SCYTHE2%07XM Cyber0%
XM Cyber0%08Mandiant Security Validation0%
What they warned about
Two of fourteen models held their first choice under the paraphrase. 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 and MiniMax M2.5 changed. A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
Cymulate13%
9 of 68 labels negative · 8 of 14 models · 2 hard negative
“Cymulate has a negative rate of 35% and is also considered a "criticized challenger" by some AI models.” Llama 4 Maverick, negative prompt
SafeBreach14%
9 of 64 labels negative · 8 of 14 models · 1 hard negative
“SafeBreach has a high negative rate of 63% and is considered a "criticized challenger" by some AI models.” Llama 4 Maverick, negative prompt
Pentera18%
8 of 45 labels negative · 6 of 14 models
“review summaries mention missing features, insufficient RBAC, and being resource intensive. That's a red flag for large, multi-team environments” GPT-5.4 mini, negative prompt
AttackIQ9%
6 of 66 labels negative · 5 of 14 models
“AttackIQ for very large, highly complex deployments. Reviews describe it as easy to use and scalable, but some users question its suitability for larger companies.” Perplexity Sonar, negative prompt
What they cite
Fourteen of the fourteen models returned a source list in this edition: five return the pages they cited and nine the search results they consulted.
Sites the answers cite
75 of 84 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 14 of 14 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 997 links across 244 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. 59 of the 252 answers across every segment cited this index's own page for the category; the method page measures whether that reading tilts an answer.
vendor site · Picus Security37 answers · 58 citations · 14 models
vendor site · G234 answers · 51 citations · 12 models
vendor site · Cymulate32 answers · 58 citations · 12 models
31 answers · 31 citations · 12 models
vendor site · SafeBreach24 answers · 47 citations · 10 models
vendor site · AttackIQ23 answers · 34 citations · 11 models
22 answers · 23 citations · 11 models
vendor site · Guideflow21 answers · 21 citations · 9 models
20 answers · 27 citations · 9 models
vendor site · SOCRadar19 answers · 19 citations · 7 models
publisher (Gane)16 answers · 22 citations · 7 models
14 answers · 20 citations · 9 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
31 answers · 12 models
22 answers · 11 models
21 answers · 11 models
20 answers · 8 models
19 answers · 7 models
16 answers · 7 models
12 answers · 7 models
12 answers · 6 models
11 answers · 8 models
10 answers · 7 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “best breach and attack simulation platform”, “breach and attack simulation platform”, “breach and attack simulation platforms”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days | Best Google position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cymulate cymulate.com | 27% | 177 | 720 | 16 | 16,407 | 3 | ||
| Picus Security Validation Platform picussecurity.com | 25% | 154 | 20 | 0 | 81,880 | $1,031 | 25 | 3 |
| AttackIQ attackiq.com AttackIQ 15%, AttackIQ Flex 2% | 17% | 140 | 1,000 | 9 | 1,414 | 11 | ||
| SafeBreach safebreach.com | 15% | 149 | 480 | 3 | 1,058 | 8 | 1 | |
| Pentera pentera.io | 7% | 123 | 1,900 | 49 | 9,580 | 0 | ||
| Validato validato.io | 3% | 16 | 30 | 0 | ||||
| SCYTHE scythe.io | 2% | 28 | ||||||
| MITRE ATT&CK mitre.org | 2% | 3 | ||||||
| ServiceNow parent site ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management 2% | 2% | 200 | 135,000 | 13,451 | ||||
| Atomic Red Team atomicredteam.io | 2% | 25 | 880 | 15 | 388 |
Google's top ten for the three searches hold 19 sites; 5 of them are among the sites the models cited here (g2.com, picussecurity.com, reddit.com, safebreach.com, startupstash.com). The first result for “best breach and attack simulation platform” is sourceforge.net.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best breach and attack simulation platform for an enterprise B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which security control validation tool would you recommend to a large B2B company with thousands of employees?”Comparative“What are the top enterprise-grade breach and attack simulation platforms and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best breach and attack simulation platform for a large company that needs predictable total cost across thousands of users?”Scale-constrained“We are a 5,000 person company with SSO, SOC 2 and procurement review requirements evaluating a breach and attack simulation platform. What should we look at?”Negative“Which breach and attack simulation platforms should a large enterprise avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Haiku 4.5CymulateAttackIQChangedThe NodeZero PlatformSafeBreachno first choicenothing named
Two alternatives
AttackIQ, SafeBreachFour alternatives
Cymulate, Mandiant Security Validation, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachFour alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachOne alternative
CymulateGPT-5.4 miniPicus Security Validation PlatformAttackIQChangedAttackIQagainst: FortraPicus Security Validation Platformno first choiceagainst: Cymulate, Pentera, Right-Hand Cybersecurity
Two alternatives
AttackIQ, CymulateOne alternative
CymulateTwo alternatives
Cymulate, SafeBreachTwo alternatives
AttackIQ, SafeBreach ValidateGemini 3.5 FlashCymulatePentera, SafeBreachChangedAttackIQ, SafeBreachSafeBreachSafeBreachagainst: Atomic Red Team, Infection Monkey, MITRE Caldera
Five alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreach, XM CyberTwo alternatives
AttackIQ, Picus Security Validation PlatformFour alternatives
Cymulate, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, XM CyberTwo alternatives
AttackIQ, CymulateThree alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformPerplexity SonarCymulateAttackIQChangedCymulateAttackIQno first choiceagainst: AttackIQ, AttackIQ Flex, Cymulate
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, SafeBreachFour alternatives
Cymulate, Hyperproof, Pentera, Picus Security Validation PlatformSix alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SCYTHE, SafeBreach, XM CyberTwo alternatives
Cymulate, SafeBreachGrok 4.20Cymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformPicus Security Validation PlatformChangedno first choiceCymulateagainst: Atomic Red Team, AttackIQ, MITRE Caldera, Mandiant Security Validation, Pentera, SafeBreach, XM CyberCymulateagainst: AttackIQ, Cymulate, Mandiant Security Validation, NodeZero, Pentera, SafeBreach
Two alternatives
AttackIQ, PenteraFour alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Pentera, SafeBreachOne alternative
Picus Security Validation PlatformFour alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachMistral SmallCymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformSCYTHE, ValidatoChangedCymulateCymulate, Picus Security Validation Platformno first choiceagainst: AttackIQ, Cymulate, Pentera, SafeBreach
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, SafeBreachOne alternative
SafeBreachSeven alternatives
AttackIQ, Mandiant Security Validation, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SCYTHE, SafeBreach, XM CyberOne alternative
PenteraDeepSeek V4 FlashCymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformCymulateChangedSafeBreachCymulate, SafeBreachno first choiceagainst: Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreach
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, SafeBreachThree alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, SafeBreachFive alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Mandiant Security Validation, Pentera, Picus Security Validation PlatformOne alternative
AttackIQLlama 4 MaverickCymulateAttackIQ, Cymulate, ValidatoChangedCymulateAttackIQ, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachno first choiceagainst: AttackIQ, Cymulate, SafeBreach
Four alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachFour alternatives
Picus Security Validation Platform, Rapid7, SCYTHE, XM CyberQwen 3.7 FlashPenteraServiceNow Integrated Risk ManagementChangedCymulate, SafeBreachPicus Security Validation Platformagainst: Horizon3.ai NodeZero, Penterano first choiceagainst: Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreach
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformThree alternatives
MetricStream, OneTrust, SAP ARQUUSThree alternatives
AttackIQ, CyberRati, Red CanaryTwo alternatives
AttackIQ, CymulateKimi K2Cymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformPenteraChangedPenteraagainst: Mandiant Security ValidationPicus Security Validation Platformagainst: AttackIQ, SafeBreachPicus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachagainst: Penteranothing named
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, SafeBreachFive alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Mandiant Security Validation, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachFive alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreach, XM CyberTwo alternatives
Cymulate, XM CyberTwo alternatives
AttackIQ, CymulateGLM 4.7 FlashXSafeBreachAttackIQChangedPicus Security Validation PlatformPenteraagainst: Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachno first choiceagainst: Horizon3.ai NodeZero, Pentera, XM Cyber
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformThree alternatives
Cymulate, Defion Security, SafeBreachFive alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Pentera, SafeBreach, XM CyberMiniMax M2.5AttackIQAtomic Red Team, MITRE ATT&CKChangedCymulate, Picus Security Validation PlatformAttackIQagainst: Keysight Threat Simulator, Open-sourceSafeBreachnothing named
Four alternatives
Cymulate, Guardicore, SafeBreach, XM CyberTwo alternatives
MITRE Caldera, Purple SharpFour alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, SafeBreach, XM CyberThree alternatives
Cymulate, Pentera, SafeBreachFour alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, Mandiant Security Validation, PenteraGPT-6 LunaPicus Security Validation PlatformPicus Security Validation PlatformHeldAttackIQ, Cymulate, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachPicus Security Validation Platformno first choicenothing named
Three alternatives
AttackIQ, Cymulate, SafeBreachOne alternative
AttackIQThree alternatives
Mandiant Security Validation, Pentera, SCYTHETwo alternatives
AttackIQ, SafeBreachMuse Glimmer 30BCymulateCymulateHeldno first choiceAttackIQ Flexagainst: Cymulate, SafeBreachno first choiceagainst: Cymulate
Four alternatives
AttackIQ, Pentera, Picus Security Validation Platform, SafeBreachTwo alternatives
AttackIQ, SafeBreachOne alternative
OSec IncenterBold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency.
Eighty-four rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct recommendation | Claude Haiku 4.5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | 2026-11-01 16:37 | yes | 10 | 7 s |
| Direct recommendation | GPT-5.4 mini | gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 | 2026-11-01 12:04 | no | 0 | 3 s |
| Direct recommendation | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version) | 2026-11-01 17:26 | yes | 8 | 18 s |
| Direct recommendation | Perplexity Sonar | sonar | 2026-11-01 17:56 | yes | 10 | 5 s |
| Direct recommendation | Grok 4.20 | spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai | 2026-11-01 14:21 | yes | 15 | 14 s |
| Direct recommendation | Mistral Small | mistral/mistral-small via mistral | 2026-11-01 12:57 | yes | 5 | 5 s |
| Direct recommendation | DeepSeek V4 Flash | deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra | 2026-11-01 17:17 | yes | 24 | 35 s |
| Direct recommendation | Llama 4 Maverick | meta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock | 2026-11-01 09:46 | yes | 5 | 3 s |
| Direct recommendation | Qwen 3.7 Flash | alibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba | 2026-11-01 19:27 | yes | 5 | 23 s |
| Direct recommendation | Kimi K2 | moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita | 2026-11-01 17:16 | yes | 10 | 23 s |
| Direct recommendation | GLM 4.7 FlashX | zai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai | 2026-11-01 16:20 | yes | 23 | 155 s |
| Direct recommendation | MiniMax M2.5 | minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax | 2026-11-01 10:09 | no | 0 | 94 s |
| Direct recommendation | GPT-6 Luna | gpt-6-luna | 2026-11-01 14:59 | yes | 4 | 20 s |
| Direct recommendation | Muse Glimmer 30B | meta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai | 2026-11-01 08:59 | yes | 13 | 17 s |
| Paraphrase | Claude Haiku 4.5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | 2026-11-01 19:42 | yes | 9 | 8 s |
| Paraphrase | GPT-5.4 mini | gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 | 2026-11-01 11:27 | yes | 2 | 4 s |
| Paraphrase | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version) | 2026-11-01 12:28 | no | 0 | 17 s |
| Paraphrase | Perplexity Sonar | sonar | 2026-11-01 16:20 | yes | 10 | 4 s |
| Paraphrase | Grok 4.20 | spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai | 2026-11-01 16:17 | yes | 5 | 9 s |
| Paraphrase | Mistral Small | mistral/mistral-small via mistral | 2026-11-01 16:12 | yes | 5 | 5 s |
| Paraphrase | DeepSeek V4 Flash | deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra | 2026-11-01 13:21 | yes | 24 | 23 s |
| Paraphrase | Llama 4 Maverick | meta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock | 2026-11-01 12:52 | yes | 5 | 2 s |
| Paraphrase | Qwen 3.7 Flash | alibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba | 2026-11-01 19:32 | yes | 5 | 28 s |
| Paraphrase | Kimi K2 | moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita | 2026-11-01 17:56 | yes | 10 | 29 s |
| Paraphrase | GLM 4.7 FlashX | zai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai | 2026-11-01 11:03 | yes | 10 | 22 s |
| Paraphrase | MiniMax M2.5 | minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax | 2026-11-01 11:51 | no | 0 | 12 s |
| Paraphrase | GPT-6 Luna | gpt-6-luna | 2026-11-01 09:47 | yes | 2 | 12 s |
| Paraphrase | Muse Glimmer 30B | meta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai | 2026-11-01 13:14 | yes | 23 | 26 s |
| Comparative | Claude Haiku 4.5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | 2026-11-01 13:38 | yes | 10 | 10 s |
| Comparative | GPT-5.4 mini | gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 | 2026-11-01 15:50 | yes | 4 | 10 s |
| Comparative | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version) | 2026-11-01 17:41 | no | 0 | 20 s |
| Comparative | Perplexity Sonar | sonar | 2026-11-01 14:31 | yes | 10 | 6 s |
| Comparative | Grok 4.20 | spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai | 2026-11-01 17:45 | yes | 9 | 15 s |
| Comparative | Mistral Small | mistral/mistral-small via mistral | 2026-11-01 12:18 | yes | 5 | 14 s |
| Comparative | DeepSeek V4 Flash | deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra | 2026-11-01 15:27 | yes | 24 | 35 s |
| Comparative | Llama 4 Maverick | meta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock | 2026-11-01 12:33 | yes | 5 | 3 s |
| Comparative | Qwen 3.7 Flash | alibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba | 2026-11-01 16:09 | no | 0 | 32 s |
| Comparative | Kimi K2 | moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita | 2026-11-01 15:09 | yes | 24 | 35 s |
| Comparative | GLM 4.7 FlashX | zai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai | 2026-11-01 18:15 | yes | 23 | 67 s |
| Comparative | MiniMax M2.5 | minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax | 2026-11-01 18:52 | yes | 25 | 76 s |
| Comparative | GPT-6 Luna | gpt-6-luna | 2026-11-01 08:52 | yes | 10 | 37 s |
| Comparative | Muse Glimmer 30B | meta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai | 2026-11-01 12:02 | yes | 24 | 44 s |
| Budget constrained | Claude Haiku 4.5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | 2026-11-01 17:05 | yes | 20 | 8 s |
| Budget constrained | GPT-5.4 mini | gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 | 2026-11-01 14:11 | yes | 4 | 5 s |
| Budget constrained | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version) | 2026-11-01 09:47 | yes | 10 | 20 s |
| Budget constrained | Perplexity Sonar | sonar | 2026-11-01 17:53 | yes | 10 | 3 s |
| Budget constrained | Grok 4.20 | spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai | 2026-11-01 18:29 | yes | 5 | 9 s |
| Budget constrained | Mistral Small | mistral/mistral-small via mistral | 2026-11-01 13:42 | yes | 9 | 7 s |
| Budget constrained | DeepSeek V4 Flash | deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra | 2026-11-01 16:45 | yes | 25 | 35 s |
| Budget constrained | Llama 4 Maverick | meta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock | 2026-11-01 09:41 | yes | 5 | 3 s |
| Budget constrained | Qwen 3.7 Flash | alibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba | 2026-11-01 13:05 | yes | 25 | 107 s |
| Budget constrained | Kimi K2 | moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita | 2026-11-01 14:52 | yes | 24 | 39 s |
| Budget constrained | GLM 4.7 FlashX | zai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai | 2026-11-01 09:32 | yes | 22 | 47 s |
| Budget constrained | MiniMax M2.5 | minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax | 2026-11-01 15:38 | yes | 24 | 138 s |
| Budget constrained | GPT-6 Luna | gpt-6-luna | 2026-11-01 15:23 | yes | 2 | 13 s |
| Budget constrained | Muse Glimmer 30B | meta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai | 2026-11-01 14:32 | yes | 23 | 34 s |
| Scale constrained | Claude Haiku 4.5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | 2026-11-01 14:46 | yes | 18 | 18 s |
| Scale constrained | GPT-5.4 mini | gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 | 2026-11-01 09:00 | yes | 6 | 10 s |
| Scale constrained | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version) | 2026-11-01 14:38 | no | 0 | 21 s |
| Scale constrained | Perplexity Sonar | sonar | 2026-11-01 11:03 | yes | 10 | 9 s |
| Scale constrained | Grok 4.20 | spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai | 2026-11-01 17:42 | yes | 13 | 16 s |
| Scale constrained | Mistral Small | mistral/mistral-small via mistral | 2026-11-01 14:03 | no | 0 | 8 s |
| Scale constrained | DeepSeek V4 Flash | deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra | 2026-11-01 15:35 | yes | 24 | 59 s |
| Scale constrained | Llama 4 Maverick | meta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock | 2026-11-01 13:16 | yes | 5 | 4 s |
| Scale constrained | Qwen 3.7 Flash | alibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba | 2026-11-01 16:57 | no | 0 | 33 s |
| Scale constrained | Kimi K2 | moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita | 2026-11-01 11:59 | yes | 14 | 40 s |
| Scale constrained | GLM 4.7 FlashX | zai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai | 2026-11-01 10:26 | yes | 14 | 19 s |
| Scale constrained | MiniMax M2.5 | minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax | 2026-11-01 16:47 | yes | 15 | 38 s |
| Scale constrained | GPT-6 Luna | gpt-6-luna | 2026-11-01 16:55 | yes | 2 | 23 s |
| Scale constrained | Muse Glimmer 30B | meta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai | 2026-11-01 09:33 | yes | 13 | 25 s |
| Negative framing | Claude Haiku 4.5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | 2026-11-01 10:36 | yes | 27 | 11 s |
| Negative framing | GPT-5.4 mini | gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 | 2026-11-01 12:24 | yes | 2 | 5 s |
| Negative framing | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version) | 2026-11-01 17:15 | yes | 13 | 23 s |
| Negative framing | Perplexity Sonar | sonar | 2026-11-01 11:55 | yes | 10 | 7 s |
| Negative framing | Grok 4.20 | spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai | 2026-11-01 18:25 | yes | 23 | 20 s |
| Negative framing | Mistral Small | mistral/mistral-small via mistral | 2026-11-01 14:16 | yes | 14 | 9 s |
| Negative framing | DeepSeek V4 Flash | deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra | 2026-11-01 13:23 | yes | 25 | 43 s |
| Negative framing | Llama 4 Maverick | meta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock | 2026-11-01 17:15 | yes | 5 | 2 s |
| Negative framing | Qwen 3.7 Flash | alibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba | 2026-11-01 17:18 | yes | 23 | 74 s |
| Negative framing | Kimi K2 | moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita | 2026-11-01 10:46 | yes | 21 | 24 s |
| Negative framing | GLM 4.7 FlashX | zai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai | 2026-11-01 09:27 | yes | 24 | 31 s |
| Negative framing | MiniMax M2.5 | minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax | 2026-11-01 17:50 | yes | 25 | 81 s |
| Negative framing | GPT-6 Luna | gpt-6-luna | 2026-11-01 09:18 | yes | 3 | 18 s |
| Negative framing | Muse Glimmer 30B | meta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai | 2026-11-01 09:54 | yes | 25 | 28 s |
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
Horizon3.ai read as Horizon3.ai NodeZero
Horizon3.ai (NodeZero) read as Horizon3.ai NodeZero
Mandiant read as Mandiant Security Validation
Mandiant (Google Cloud) read as Mandiant Security Validation
Picus read as Picus Security Validation Platform
Picus Security read as Picus Security Validation Platform
Tenable read as Tenable One
Unresolved, counted raw
Cronus-Cyber Technologies
CyberRati
DXC Technology
Defion Security
IBM Randori Attack
Mandiant Red Team Assessment
Mazebolt
NetSPI Breach and Attack Simulation
NopSec
OSec Incenter
Open-source (Caldera + others)
Purple Sharp
RedScan Breach and Attack Simulation
SAP ARQUUS (formerly Archer)
SimSpace
Threatcare
Verdoin (FireEye)
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.