Cyber risk quantification · November 2026 Edition
CyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLens
Three of fourteen models named CyberSaint CyberStrong first on the direct prompt; zero named RiskLens. CyberSaint CyberStrong was named by eleven of the fourteen models and RiskLens by twelve and CyberSaint CyberStrong carries 23 labels and RiskLens 26, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
RiskLens
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share13%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate13%42%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2326A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, CyberSaint CyberStrong reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.CyberSaint CyberStrong vs Kovrr · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs Axio360 · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE Security
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 cyber risk quantification page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
CyberSaint CyberStrongFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRiskLensDirect304 against RiskLens
Paraphrase401 against RiskLens
Comparative02
Budget-constrained012 against RiskLens
Scale-constrained001 against RiskLens
Negative013 against CyberSaint CyberStrong · 3 against RiskLens
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, CyberSaint CyberStrong and RiskLens were named in the same answer thirty-one times, of the 70 answers naming CyberSaint CyberStrong and the 87 naming RiskLens. In those answers RiskLens took the first choice five times and CyberSaint CyberStrong two.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where CyberSaint CyberStrong and RiskLens stood in it.
| Model | DirectRI | ParaphraseRI | ComparativeRI | Budget-constrainedRI | Scale-constrainedRI | NegativeRI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | RI | RI | RI | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | ||||||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | RI | ||
| Grok 4.20 | RI | RI | RI | RI | ||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | RI | RI | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | RI | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | RI | RI | |||
| Kimi K2 | RI | RI | RI | RI | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | RI | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | RI | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | ||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | RI | | |
CyberSaint CyberStrongRI RiskLens first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, CyberSaint CyberStrong on the left and RiskLens on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where CyberSaint CyberStrong and RiskLens stood in it.
CyberSaint CyberStrong first, RiskLens not the choice
3 of 14 modelsRiskLens was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Perplexity SonarCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, Balbix, LogicGate Risk Cloud, SAFE Security, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Kimi K2CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security alternatives: Axio360, FortifyData
Muse Glimmer 30BAxio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, CyberStrong alternatives: C-Risk
Neither was the first choice, one was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.20Kovrr alternatives: Axio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security, vCISO Lite
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Black Kite alternatives: Nisura, UpGuard
GPT-5.4 miniX-Analytics alternatives: Bitsight Financial Quantification, SecurityScorecard, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Gemini 3.5 FlashAxio360 alternatives: Bitsight Financial Quantification, Kovrr, SAFE Security
Mistral SmallKovrr, SAFE Security alternatives: Optro, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
DeepSeek V4 FlashAxio360 alternatives: Balbix, Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Llama 4 MaverickCyber Quant alternatives: Axio360, Risk Cloud Quantify, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Qwen 3.7 FlashX-Analytics alternatives: Kovrr, SAFE Security
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard alternatives: Axio, SAFE Security
MiniMax M2.5Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier alternatives: Ostrich Cyber Risk
GPT-6 LunaAxio360 alternatives: CyberStrong, SAFE One
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
RiskLens leads by two points.
RiskLens2%#7 of 11
CyberSaint CyberStrong0%#8 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: CyberSaint CyberStrong leads at mid-market.
CyberSaint CyberStrong13%#1 of 10RiskLens2%#7 of 10
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
The order flips: RiskLens leads at enterprise.
RiskLens12%#3 of 13
CyberSaint CyberStrong2%#5 of 13What the models said about CyberSaint CyberStrong
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Avoid mid-market tools like CyberSaint ($30K–$80K) as they lack depth for thousands of users.” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
“Mid-market tools like CyberSaint ... often criticized for lacking the depth and scalability required for organizations with thousands of users” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“Criticized as mid-market at $30K–$80K but "lacking depth" for organizations with thousands of users.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“I'd recommend CyberSaint if you need a dedicated CRQ platform plus compliance and risk-framework mapping” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“That is why Axio360 and CyberSaint are the names that dominate current buyer guides for mid-market B2B.” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice
“I recommend CyberSaint (often associated with CyberStrong) or Cyrisma.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about RiskLens
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid overly complex/expensive tools (e.g., full Balbix or pure RiskLens post-acquisition)” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Avoid starting with enterprise products such as MetricStream, Archer, or RiskLens” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“Enterprise SaaS tools like the broader RiskLens platform or other commercial CRQ tools can work well, but they're typically more than a small-budget company needs at the start.” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · soft negative
“RiskLens (The Industry Standard) ... the most widely adopted commercial tool for FAIR-based analysis” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“RiskLens Pro managed service — best if you want faster results with minimal internal effort.” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice
“Choose RiskLens if you want the gold-standard, FAIR-compliant quantitative framework.” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
CyberSaint CyberStrong vs KovrrCyberSaint CyberStrong vs Axio360CyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE SecurityCyberSaint CyberStrong vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierCyberSaint CyberStrong vs AxioKovrr vs RiskLensAxio360 vs RiskLensSAFE Security vs RiskLensThreatConnect Risk Quantifier vs RiskLensAxio vs RiskLensAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full cyber risk quant 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.