Cyber risk quantification · November 2026 Edition
SAFE Security vs RiskLens
Two of fourteen models named SAFE Security first on the direct prompt; zero named RiskLens. SAFE Security was named by twelve of the fourteen models and RiskLens by twelve and SAFE Security carries 29 labels and RiskLens 26, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
RiskLens
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share6%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate38%42%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2926A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, SAFE Security reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.CyberSaint CyberStrong vs SAFE Security · CyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLens · Kovrr 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.
SAFE SecurityFirst choices, of fourteen modelsRiskLensDirect202 against SAFE Security · 4 against RiskLens
Paraphrase102 against SAFE Security · 1 against RiskLens
Comparative52
Budget-constrained013 against SAFE Security · 2 against RiskLens
Scale-constrained001 against SAFE Security · 1 against RiskLens
Negative013 against SAFE Security · 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, SAFE Security and RiskLens were named in the same answer sixty-three times, of the 117 answers naming SAFE Security and the 87 naming RiskLens. In those answers RiskLens took the first choice seven times and SAFE Security eighteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where SAFE Security 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 |
SAFE SecurityRI RiskLens first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, SAFE Security on the left and RiskLens on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where SAFE Security and RiskLens stood in it.
SAFE Security first, RiskLens not the choice
2 of 14 modelsRiskLens was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Mistral SmallKovrr, SAFE Security alternatives: Optro, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
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
Grok 4.20Kovrr alternatives: Axio360, CyberSaint CyberStrong, SAFE Security, vCISO Lite
Qwen 3.7 FlashX-Analytics alternatives: Kovrr, SAFE Security
GLM 4.7 FlashXUpGuard alternatives: Axio, SAFE Security
Neither was named
7 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
DeepSeek V4 FlashAxio360 alternatives: Balbix, Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
Llama 4 MaverickCyber Quant alternatives: Axio360, Risk Cloud Quantify, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier
MiniMax M2.5Kovrr, ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier alternatives: Ostrich Cyber Risk
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
RiskLens leads by two points.
RiskLens2%#7 of 11
SAFE Security0%#11 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: SAFE Security leads at mid-market.
SAFE Security6%#4 of 10RiskLens2%#7 of 10
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
SAFE Security leads by thirty-six points.
SAFE Security48%#1 of 13RiskLens12%#3 of 13
The full enterprise standing →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
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 SAFE SecurityCyberSaint CyberStrong vs RiskLensKovrr vs SAFE SecurityKovrr vs RiskLensAxio360 vs SAFE SecurityAxio360 vs RiskLensSAFE Security vs ThreatConnect Risk QuantifierSAFE Security vs AxioThreatConnect 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.