Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › IT › Security operations › Cyber risk quant · November 2026 Edition

Cyber risk quantification

Asked as “cyber risk quantification tool”, and as “CRQ platform”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B company. 54 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, fourteen models each. Added to the November 2026 Edition.
Standing · first-choice share
13%
CyberSaint CyberStrong
Contested · FairCRQ 11%
13CyberSaint CyberStrong11FairCRQ09Kovrr67others

13% of first choices, contested.

Since October 2026▼−12Since October 2026: 25% → 13%, −12 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement.CyberSaint CyberStrong held the lead, −12 points on 25%, past the floor.
ShowinginAll 136 categories →

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 businessFairCRQ35%Contested▲+26Since October 2026: 9% → 35%, +26 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement.Standing →Mid-marketCyberSaint CyberStrong13%Contested▼−12Since October 2026: 25% → 13%, −12 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement.This pageEnterpriseSAFE Security48%Clear leader▼−8Since October 2026: 56% → 48%, −8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.Standing →

The standing

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. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince October 2026
01CyberSaint CyberStrong13%13%23accepted challenger▼−12Since October 2026: 25% → 13%, −12 points. Past the 11-point floor: movement.25% → 13%
02Kovrr9%15%33accepted challenger▼−3Since October 2026: 12% → 9%, −3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.12% → 9%
03Axio3607%6%18accepted challenger▲+3Since October 2026: 4% → 7%, +3 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.4% → 7%
04SAFE Security6%38%29criticized challenger▼−2Since October 2026: 8% → 6%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.8% → 6%
05ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier2%5%22accepted challenger▲+2Since October 2026: 0% → 2%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.0% → 2%
06Axio2%25%16criticized challenger▼−4Since October 2026: 6% → 2%, −4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.6% → 2%
07RiskLens2%42%26criticized challenger=heldSince October 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.2% → 2%
Show the three products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
10SAFE One0%30%10criticized challenger=heldSince October 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.0% → 0%
08Balbix0%26%19criticized challenger=heldSince October 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.0% → 0%
09Bitsight Financial Quantification0%17%12accepted challenger=heldSince October 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise.0% → 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
Build your shortlist
Head to head
CyberSaint CyberStrong vs KovrrCyberSaint CyberStrong vs Axio360CyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE Security
All twenty-one head-to-head pages: the top seven products, each against each
CyberSaint CyberStrong vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierCyberSaint CyberStrong vs AxioCyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLensKovrr vs Axio360Kovrr vs SAFE SecurityKovrr vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierKovrr vs AxioKovrr vs RiskLensAxio360 vs SAFE SecurityAxio360 vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierAxio360 vs AxioAxio360 vs RiskLensSAFE Security vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierSAFE Security vs AxioSAFE Security vs RiskLensThreatConnect Risk Quantifier vs AxioThreatConnect Risk Quantifier vs RiskLensAxio vs RiskLens

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 →
01
02
A03
04
T05
06
R07
08
09
10
Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative30%
Key
01CyberSaint CyberStrong13%
02Kovrr9%
03Axio3607%
04SAFE Security6%
05ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier2%
06Axio2%
07RiskLens2%
08Balbix0%
09Bitsight Financial Quantification0%
10SAFE One0%

What they warned about

One of fourteen models held their first choice under the paraphrase. Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-5.4 mini, Gemini 3.5 Flash, 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 and Muse Glimmer 30B 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.
RiskLens
42%
11 of 26 labels negative · 9 of 14 models · 2 hard negative
“Avoid overly complex/expensive tools (e.g., full Balbix or pure RiskLens post-acquisition)” Grok 4.20, direct prompt
SAFE Security
38%
11 of 29 labels negative · 7 of 14 models · 1 hard negative
“Avoid enterprise tools like SAFE Security, Axio, or Balbix if budget is tight” DeepSeek V4 Flash, budget prompt
Archer
86%
6 of 7 labels negative · 5 of 14 models · 2 hard negative
“GRC platforms (ServiceNow, Archer, OneTrust, etc.) that now tout "CRQ capabilities" as an added feature... Approach to avoid” DeepSeek V4 Flash, negative prompt
OneTrust
83%
5 of 6 labels negative · 5 of 14 models · 1 hard negative
“GRC platforms (ServiceNow, Archer, OneTrust, etc.) that now tout "CRQ capabilities" as an added feature... Approach to avoid” DeepSeek V4 Flash, 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

76 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. 924 links across 220 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. 84 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.

g2.com
vendor site · G238 answers · 46 citations · 11 models
securityboulevard.com
27 answers · 47 citations · 9 models
kovrr.com
vendor site · Kovrr26 answers · 46 citations · 12 models
github.com
vendor site · GitHub21 answers · 45 citations · 9 models
fairinstitute.org
vendor site · FAIR Institute21 answers · 40 citations · 10 models
gane.ai/index
publisher (Gane)18 answers · 24 citations · 10 models
techtarget.com
18 answers · 20 citations · 9 models
riskpublishing.com
17 answers · 19 citations · 9 models
cyberpress.org
vendor site · CyberPress17 answers · 17 citations · 8 models
safe.security
vendor site · SAFE14 answers · 30 citations · 8 models
palomarr.com
vendor site · Palomarr14 answers · 18 citations · 8 models
cyberdb.co
14 answers · 15 citations · 8 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.

g2.com/categories/cyber-risk-quantification-crq-tools
34 answers · 11 models
cyberpress.org/crq-tools-review
17 answers · 8 models
techtarget.com/news/Cyber-risk-quantification-challenges-and-tools-that-can…
16 answers · 9 models
cyberdb.co/what-are-the-best-platforms-for-quantifying-cyber-risk
14 answers · 8 models
kovrr.com/blog-post/the-best-cyber-risk-quantification-tools-in-2026-a-buye…
13 answers · 8 models
securityboulevard.com/2026/10/best-cyber-risk-quantification-tools-buyers-g…
13 answers · 8 models
riskpublishing.com/best-cyber-risk-quantification-platforms-compar
12 answers · 8 models
startupstash.com/best-cyber-risk-quantification-tools
12 answers · 8 models
palomarr.com/cs/risk-quantification/top-companies
11 answers · 8 models
github.com/Jagan96404/Cyber-Risk-Quantification
10 answers · 5 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 cyber risk quantification tool”, “cyber risk quantification tool”, “cyber risk quantification tools”. 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 productsShareOwn site citedName searches, GoogleAI search demand, est.Organic visitsGoogle ads, last 30 daysBest Google position
CyberSaint CyberStrong cybersaint.io13%68021,50419
FairCRQ faircrq.com11%320
Kovrr kovrr.com9%107140330,98134
Axio3607%500
SAFE Security safe.security6%1122,4005,4961,015,372128
Maxxsure6%900
CISA CSET cisa.gov
CISA Velocity 4%, CISA CSET 2%		6%51,801,370
X-Analytics4%
Deep-Insight deep-insight.com4%7
ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier threatconnect.com2%491,4360

Google's top ten for the three searches hold 26 sites; 2 of them are among the sites the models cited here (kovrr.com, safe.security). The first result for “best cyber risk quantification tool” is cybersierra.co.

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
ModelDirect“What is the best cyber risk quantification tool for a mid-market B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which CRQ platform would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B company?”Comparative“What are the top cyber risk quantification tools and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best cyber risk quantification tool for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a cyber risk quantification tool. What should we look at?”Negative“Which cyber risk quantification tools should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Haiku 4.5Black Kite
Two alternativesNisura, UpGuard
no first choiceChangedSAFE Security
Nine alternativesAxio, Balbix, Bitsight Financial Quantification, CyberSaint CyberStrong, Cymulate, Kovrr, ProcessUnity, Resilience, Squalify
CISA CSET
Four alternativesCyberRisk Canvas, NIST CSF 2.0 templates, Open Risk Register, evaluator
no first choicenothing named
GPT-5.4 miniX-Analytics
Three alternativesBitsight Financial Quantification, SecurityScorecard, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
SAFE SecurityChanged
One alternativeRiskLens
SAFE One
Four alternativesBitsight Financial Quantification, Kovrr, RiskLens, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
against: MTM Cyber Risk AnalyticsRiskLensagainst: RiskLensno first choicenothing named
Gemini 3.5 FlashAxio360
Three alternativesBitsight Financial Quantification, Kovrr, SAFE Security
KovrrChanged
Three alternativesAxio360, SAFE Security, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
SAFE Security
Five alternativesAxio, Balbix, DeNexus, Kovrr, ThreatConnect
FAIR-U
Five alternativesAxio360, Hive Systems, SimpleRisk, evaluator, pyfair
against: Kovrr, SAFE Security, ThreatConnectno first choiceagainst: Bitsight Financial Quantification, SecurityScorecard, UpGuard
Perplexity SonarCyberSaint CyberStrong
Five alternativesAxio, Balbix, LogicGate Risk Cloud, SAFE Security, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
CyberSaint CyberStrongHeld
Two alternativesKovrr, vCISO Lite
against: SAFE SecuritySAFE Security
Six alternativesAxio, Balbix, CyberSaint CyberStrong, Cymulate, Kovrr, ProcessUnity
against: Archer, MetricStream, RiskonnectFairCRQ
Two alternativesComplyJet, LogicGate Risk Cloud Quantify
against: Archer, MetricStream, RiskLensno first choicenothing named
Grok 4.20Kovrr
Four alternativesAxio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security, vCISO Lite
against: Balbix, RiskLensHubSpot CRMChanged
Three alternativesNutshell, Pipedrive, Zoho CRM
against: Microsoft Dynamics, Salesforce Sales CloudAxio, SAFE One
Three alternativesBalbix, MetricStream, RiskLens
against: GuidewireFair TPRM
Three alternativesAwpDemon/cyber-risk-quant, Citalid, paolocarner/fair-monte-carlo-risk-analysis
against: Axio360, Balbix, Bitsight Financial Quantification, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifierno first choice
Five alternativesBitsight Financial Quantification, Black Kite, CyberStrong, Kovrr, RiskLens
against: Balbix, ISO 27005, NIST SP 800-30, OCTAVE
Mistral SmallKovrr, SAFE Security
Two alternativesOptro, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Deep-InsightChanged
Three alternativesHubSpot, Salesforce, Zoho CRM
no first choiceNIST SP 800-30, OCTAVE
Two alternativesAxio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong
no first choiceagainst: Archer, CyberSaint CyberStrong, OneTrust, ServiceNow
DeepSeek V4 FlashAxio360
Three alternativesBalbix, Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
against: SAFE SecurityMaxxsureChanged
Two alternativesC-Trust, Kovrr
SAFE One
Four alternativesAxio360, Kovrr, RiskLens, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
FairCRQ
Four alternativesCyberRiskAI, Fair TPRM, Kovrr, cyber-risk-quantification
against: Axio, Balbix, SAFE Securityno first choiceagainst: Archer, Axio, CyberSaint CyberStrong, Kovrr, Legacy/Spreadsheet-based Open FAIR tools, OneTrust, RiskLens, SAFE Security, ServiceNow
Llama 4 MaverickCyber Quant
Three alternativesAxio360, Risk Cloud Quantify, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
CyberSaint CyberStrongChanged
Two alternativesKovrr, SAFE Security
no first choiceFairCRQ
Two alternativesKovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
no first choiceagainst: Axio, Citalid, Kovrr, RiskLens, SAFE One, SAFE Security
Qwen 3.7 FlashX-Analytics
Two alternativesKovrr, SAFE Security
CyberSaint CyberStrong, CyrismaChanged
Two alternativesFairCRQ, X-Analytics
RiskLens
Two alternativesFalcon Security Solutions, Standard Cyber
against: OneTrust, Palisade, ServiceNow ArcherFairCRQ
Two alternativesExcel, FAIR Institute
no first choiceagainst: Axio, Kovrr, RiskLens, SAFE Security
Kimi K2CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security
Two alternativesAxio360, FortifyData
against: Balbix, RiskLens, ThreatConnect RQAxio, KovrrChanged
One alternativeSAFE Security
against: RiskLensAxio360, RiskLens
Four alternativesBalbix, CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
CoreCyber
Four alternativesAwpDemon/cyber-risk-quant, Axio360, dmaketas/cyber-risk-quantification-lab, rafatyazdani/cyber-risk-quantification
against: SAFE SecurityC-Risk, C-Risk C-Trust
Three alternativesAxio, CyberSaint CyberStrong, Squalify
against: Kovrr, RiskLens, SAFE One, SAFE Securitynothing named
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard
Two alternativesAxio, SAFE Security
against: RiskLensDeep-InsightChanged
Four alternativesQualtrics, SurveyMonkey, SurveySparrow, Typeform
SAFE Security
Four alternativesAxio, Balbix, Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
FairCRQ
Four alternativesCSURFACE Cyber Risk Calculator, CyberQRM, Eramba Community, SimpleRisk
no first choiceagainst: Archer, OneTrust, ServiceNow
MiniMax M2.5Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
One alternativeOstrich Cyber Risk
against: SAFE SecurityMaxxsureChanged
Two alternativesAxio, Kovrr
against: SAFE SecuritySAFE Security
Five alternativesBalbix, Bitsight Financial Quantification, Kovrr, RiskLens, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
CISA Velocity, GitHub cyber-risk-quant
Two alternativesCoreCyber, CyberCloak.Tech
no first choiceagainst: FAIR
GPT-6 LunaAxio360
Two alternativesCyberStrong, SAFE One
CyberSaint CyberStrongChanged
One alternativeSAFE One
SAFE One, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Four alternativesAxio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, Kovrr, WTW Cyber Quantified
TidyRisk's `evaluator`
One alternativeFAIR-U
no first choicenothing named
Muse Glimmer 30BAxio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, CyberStrong
One alternativeC-Risk
against: RiskLens, SAFE OneMaxxsure, vCISO LiteChanged
One alternativeKovrr
Safe Security – SAFE One / RiskLens
Five alternativesAxio360, Balbix, CyberSaint CyberStrong, Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
CISA Velocity, FairCRQ
Two alternativescyber-risk-quant, cyber-risk-quantification
no first choiceagainst: Archer, CyberSaint CyberStrong, OneTrust, Open FAIR, ServiceNow
Bold 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.
PromptModelVersion stringTime (UTC)SearchedSourcesLatency
Direct recommendationClaude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5-202510012026-11-01 19:20yes97 s
Direct recommendationGPT-5.4 minigpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-172026-11-01 09:55yes46 s
Direct recommendationGemini 3.5 Flashgemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version)2026-11-01 18:22yes819 s
Direct recommendationPerplexity Sonarsonar2026-11-01 09:02yes104 s
Direct recommendationGrok 4.20spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai2026-11-01 15:02yes1521 s
Direct recommendationMistral Smallmistral/mistral-small via mistral2026-11-01 15:16yes55 s
Direct recommendationDeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra2026-11-01 10:02yes2330 s
Direct recommendationLlama 4 Maverickmeta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock2026-11-01 08:37yes52 s
Direct recommendationQwen 3.7 Flashalibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba2026-11-01 18:57yes1571 s
Direct recommendationKimi K2moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita2026-11-01 17:12yes2055 s
Direct recommendationGLM 4.7 FlashXzai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai2026-11-01 09:14yes25273 s
Direct recommendationMiniMax M2.5minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax2026-11-01 10:20yes524 s
Direct recommendationGPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna2026-11-01 13:03yes413 s
Direct recommendationMuse Glimmer 30Bmeta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai2026-11-01 17:52yes2426 s
ParaphraseClaude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5-202510012026-11-01 14:54no03 s
ParaphraseGPT-5.4 minigpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-172026-11-01 09:13yes04 s
ParaphraseGemini 3.5 Flashgemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version)2026-11-01 10:32yes1022 s
ParaphrasePerplexity Sonarsonar2026-11-01 09:43yes104 s
ParaphraseGrok 4.20spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai2026-11-01 18:24yes58 s
ParaphraseMistral Smallmistral/mistral-small via mistral2026-11-01 15:15yes96 s
ParaphraseDeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra2026-11-01 17:27yes2434 s
ParaphraseLlama 4 Maverickmeta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock2026-11-01 10:49yes52 s
ParaphraseQwen 3.7 Flashalibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba2026-11-01 18:35yes1036 s
ParaphraseKimi K2moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita2026-11-01 19:21yes1016 s
ParaphraseGLM 4.7 FlashXzai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai2026-11-01 15:53yes2265 s
ParaphraseMiniMax M2.5minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax2026-11-01 11:17yes1023 s
ParaphraseGPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna2026-11-01 17:02yes317 s
ParaphraseMuse Glimmer 30Bmeta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai2026-11-01 12:18yes2034 s
ComparativeClaude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5-202510012026-11-01 12:57yes109 s
ComparativeGPT-5.4 minigpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-172026-11-01 10:16yes712 s
ComparativeGemini 3.5 Flashgemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version)2026-11-01 19:41yes821 s
ComparativePerplexity Sonarsonar2026-11-01 14:57yes106 s
ComparativeGrok 4.20spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai2026-11-01 15:05yes1017 s
ComparativeMistral Smallmistral/mistral-small via mistral2026-11-01 12:23yes58 s
ComparativeDeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra2026-11-01 18:12yes2137 s
ComparativeLlama 4 Maverickmeta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock2026-11-01 16:37yes52 s
ComparativeQwen 3.7 Flashalibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba2026-11-01 16:58no030 s
ComparativeKimi K2moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita2026-11-01 13:32yes2060 s
ComparativeGLM 4.7 FlashXzai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai2026-11-01 09:53yes23523 s
ComparativeMiniMax M2.5minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax2026-11-01 14:47yes2475 s
ComparativeGPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna2026-11-01 12:56yes716 s
ComparativeMuse Glimmer 30Bmeta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai2026-11-01 17:52yes1326 s
Budget constrainedClaude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5-202510012026-11-01 10:14yes178 s
Budget constrainedGPT-5.4 minigpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-172026-11-01 10:42yes35 s
Budget constrainedGemini 3.5 Flashgemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version)2026-11-01 14:34yes822 s
Budget constrainedPerplexity Sonarsonar2026-11-01 12:35yes103 s
Budget constrainedGrok 4.20spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai2026-11-01 17:00yes912 s
Budget constrainedMistral Smallmistral/mistral-small via mistral2026-11-01 10:59yes55 s
Budget constrainedDeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra2026-11-01 17:48yes2327 s
Budget constrainedLlama 4 Maverickmeta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock2026-11-01 12:32yes52 s
Budget constrainedQwen 3.7 Flashalibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba2026-11-01 10:07yes1853 s
Budget constrainedKimi K2moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita2026-11-01 10:01yes1323 s
Budget constrainedGLM 4.7 FlashXzai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai2026-11-01 19:08yes1927 s
Budget constrainedMiniMax M2.5minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax2026-11-01 19:01yes939 s
Budget constrainedGPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna2026-11-01 19:16yes224 s
Budget constrainedMuse Glimmer 30Bmeta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai2026-11-01 15:23yes1320 s
Scale constrainedClaude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5-202510012026-11-01 17:38no05 s
Scale constrainedGPT-5.4 minigpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-172026-11-01 08:42no07 s
Scale constrainedGemini 3.5 Flashgemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version)2026-11-01 18:46yes827 s
Scale constrainedPerplexity Sonarsonar2026-11-01 10:40yes108 s
Scale constrainedGrok 4.20spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai2026-11-01 15:13yes1514 s
Scale constrainedMistral Smallmistral/mistral-small via mistral2026-11-01 15:04no06 s
Scale constrainedDeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra2026-11-01 15:11yes2541 s
Scale constrainedLlama 4 Maverickmeta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock2026-11-01 10:34yes53 s
Scale constrainedQwen 3.7 Flashalibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba2026-11-01 09:50yes1050 s
Scale constrainedKimi K2moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita2026-11-01 17:51yes2465 s
Scale constrainedGLM 4.7 FlashXzai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai2026-11-01 14:00yes2457 s
Scale constrainedMiniMax M2.5minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax2026-11-01 08:43no054 s
Scale constrainedGPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna2026-11-01 11:23yes214 s
Scale constrainedMuse Glimmer 30Bmeta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai2026-11-01 11:34yes1419 s
Negative framingClaude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5-202510012026-11-01 10:39yes1810 s
Negative framingGPT-5.4 minigpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-172026-11-01 19:22yes66 s
Negative framingGemini 3.5 Flashgemini-3.6-flash (asked for gemini-3.5-flash; the API answered as this version)2026-11-01 14:18no019 s
Negative framingPerplexity Sonarsonar2026-11-01 18:28yes104 s
Negative framingGrok 4.20spacexai/grok-4.20-non-reasoning via xai2026-11-01 17:14yes1314 s
Negative framingMistral Smallmistral/mistral-small via mistral2026-11-01 13:43yes55 s
Negative framingDeepSeek V4 Flashdeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash via deepinfra2026-11-01 15:55yes2033 s
Negative framingLlama 4 Maverickmeta/llama-4-maverick via bedrock2026-11-01 11:11yes53 s
Negative framingQwen 3.7 Flashalibaba/qwen3.7-flash via alibaba2026-11-01 08:39yes930 s
Negative framingKimi K2moonshotai/kimi-k2 via novita2026-11-01 12:23yes2333 s
Negative framingGLM 4.7 FlashXzai/glm-4.7-flashx via zai2026-11-01 11:30yes1116 s
Negative framingMiniMax M2.5minimax/minimax-m2.5 via minimax2026-11-01 09:54yes1434 s
Negative framingGPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna2026-11-01 17:33yes412 s
Negative framingMuse Glimmer 30Bmeta/muse-glimmer-30b via togetherai2026-11-01 19:13yes2231 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
BitSight read as Bitsight Financial Quantification
Bitsight read as Bitsight Financial Quantification
CyberSaint read as CyberSaint CyberStrong
CyberSaint (CyberStrong Platform) read as CyberSaint CyberStrong
CyberSaint (CyberStrong) read as CyberSaint CyberStrong
SAFE read as SAFE One
Safe read as SAFE One
Unresolved, counted raw
AllSecureX
Blowfish Technology
BlueVoyant Cyber Risk Management
C-Risk C-Trust
CISA Cyber Resilience Review
CSURFACE Cyber Risk Calculator
CyberCloak.Tech
CyberRisk Canvas
CyberRiskAI
DeNexus (DeRISK)
Falcon Security Solutions
GitHub cyber-risk-quant
Guidewire
Hive Systems
Hubbard Decision Research Spreadsheets
Legacy/Spreadsheet-based Open FAIR tools
MTM Cyber Risk Analytics
Microsoft Dynamics
NIST CSF 2.0 Reference Tool
Nutshell
Ostrich Cyber Risk (Birdseye™)
Palisade (Crystal Ball)
Qualys TruRisk
Safe Security – SAFE One / RiskLens
Salesforce Sales Cloud
Standard Cyber
SurveyMonkey
SurveySparrow
Threat Captain
TidyRisk's `evaluator`
Typeform
dmaketas/cyber-risk-quantification-lab
iiamit/CyberQRM
paolocarner/fair-monte-carlo-risk-analysis
rafatyazdani/cyber-risk-quantification
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.

Also in security operations

The other categories of this function, with the leader in each.
← Compliance automationDLP →