Cyber risk quantification · November 2026 Edition
Kovrr vs SAFE Security
Three of fourteen models named Kovrr first on the direct prompt; two named SAFE Security. Kovrr was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and SAFE Security by twelve and Kovrr carries 33 labels and SAFE Security 29, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share9%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate15%38%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#4A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels3329A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Kovrr reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.CyberSaint CyberStrong vs Kovrr · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE Security · Kovrr vs Axio360
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.
KovrrFirst choices, of fourteen modelsSAFE Security
Direct322 against SAFE Security
Paraphrase212 against SAFE Security
Comparative05
Budget-constrained001 against Kovrr · 3 against SAFE Security
Scale-constrained001 against Kovrr · 1 against SAFE Security
Negative003 against Kovrr · 3 against SAFE Security
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, Kovrr and SAFE Security were named in the same answer seventy-four times, of the 108 answers naming Kovrr and the 117 naming SAFE Security. In those answers SAFE Security took the first choice twenty-three times and Kovrr six.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Kovrr and SAFE Security 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 | | |
Kovrr SAFE Security first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Kovrr on the left and SAFE Security on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Kovrr and SAFE Security stood in it.
Both were the first choice
1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.Mistral SmallKovrr, SAFE Security alternatives: Optro, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Kovrr first, SAFE Security an alternative
2 of 14 modelsSAFE Security was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Grok 4.20Kovrr alternatives: Axio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security, vCISO Lite
MiniMax M2.5Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier alternatives: Ostrich Cyber Risk
SAFE Security first, Kovrr not the choice
1 of 14 modelsKovrr was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security alternatives: Axio360, FortifyData
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashAxio360 alternatives: Bitsight Financial Quantification, Kovrr, SAFE Security
Perplexity SonarCyberSaint CyberStrong alternatives: Axio, Balbix, LogicGate Risk Cloud, SAFE Security, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
DeepSeek V4 FlashAxio360 alternatives: Balbix, Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Qwen 3.7 FlashX-Analytics alternatives: Kovrr, SAFE Security
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard alternatives: Axio, SAFE Security
Neither was named
5 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
Llama 4 MaverickCyber Quant alternatives: Axio360, Risk Cloud Quantify, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
GPT-6 LunaAxio360 alternatives: CyberStrong, SAFE One
Muse Glimmer 30BAxio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, CyberStrong alternatives: C-Risk
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
Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: SAFE Security leads at enterprise.
SAFE Security48%#1 of 13Kovrr6%#4 of 13What the models said about Kovrr
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Platforms like Kovrr and Axio have faced criticism in niche reviews for being overly focused on insurance market dynamics rather than pure operational risk quantification” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Traditional, enterprise-grade CRQ platforms (e.g., Safe Security (SAFE One), Kovrr, Axio) - generally not recommended for B2B SMBs.” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“enterprise Cyber Risk Quantification (CRQ) platforms (such as Kovrr, Safe Security, or ThreatConnect) are often cost-prohibitive” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“I'd suggest starting with ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier or Kovrr as they offer the best balance of capability, usability, and value” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Kovrr and Safe Security are the strongest choices due to their robust quantification methodologies” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“Kovrr – *Best Overall for Fast Time-to-Value & Automation*” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about SAFE Security
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 enterprise tools like SAFE Security, Axio, or Balbix if budget is tight” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Expensive, fully licensed FAIR platforms (like early versions of RiskLens or SAFE Security) for organizations that don’t have dedicated risk analysts.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Traditional, enterprise-grade CRQ platforms (e.g., Safe Security (SAFE One), Kovrr, Axio) - generally not recommended for B2B SMBs.” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“Strongest for FAIR methodology, broad security-tool integrations, and continuous quantification” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · first choice
“my default recommendation for a mid-sized B2B company would be: 1) Safe Security” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I recommend starting with CyberSaint CyberStrong or Safe Security” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
CyberSaint CyberStrong vs KovrrCyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE SecurityKovrr vs Axio360Kovrr vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierKovrr vs AxioKovrr vs RiskLensAxio360 vs SAFE SecuritySAFE Security vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierSAFE Security vs AxioSAFE Security 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.