Deception technology · November 2026 Edition
Acalvio ShadowPlex vs Tracebit
One of fourteen models named Acalvio ShadowPlex first on the direct prompt; one named Tracebit. Acalvio ShadowPlex was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Tracebit by nine and Acalvio ShadowPlex carries 42 labels and Tracebit 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate24%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#6A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels4213A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Acalvio ShadowPlex reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Thinkst Canary was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Thinkst Canary vs Acalvio ShadowPlex · Thinkst Canary vs Tracebit · Canarytokens vs Acalvio ShadowPlex
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 deception technology page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Acalvio ShadowPlexFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTracebit
Direct111 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Paraphrase002 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Comparative90
Budget-constrained002 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Scale-constrained001 against Acalvio ShadowPlex
Negative004 against Acalvio ShadowPlex · 1 against Tracebit
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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Acalvio ShadowPlex and Tracebit 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 | | |
Acalvio ShadowPlex Tracebit first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Acalvio ShadowPlex on the left and Tracebit on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Acalvio ShadowPlex and Tracebit stood in it.
Acalvio ShadowPlex first, Tracebit not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTracebit was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.DeepSeek V4 FlashAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: SentinelOne Singularity, Thinkst Canary
Tracebit first, Acalvio ShadowPlex an alternative
1 of 14 modelsAcalvio ShadowPlex was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2Cynet, Tracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Deceptive Bytes
Neither was the first choice, one was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Thinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Canarytokens, Illusive Networks
GPT-5.4 miniLabyrinth Deception Platform alternatives: Cynet, Tracebit
Gemini 3.5 FlashThinkst Canary alternatives: Fortinet FortiDeceptor, SentinelOne Singularity Remote Deception / Identity, Tracebit, Zscaler Deception
Perplexity SonarThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fidelis Deception, Rapid7 InsightIDR Deception
Grok 4.20Thinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, FortiDeceptor, Illusive Networks, TrapX
Llama 4 MaverickThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Cymulate Deception, Fidelis Deception, Illusive Networks, TrapX DeceptionGrid
GLM 4.7 FlashXThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex
MiniMax M2.5CounterCraft, Fidelis Deception alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Attivo Networks
GPT-6 LunaThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, FortiDeceptor, Rapid7 InsightIDR Deception
Muse Glimmer 30BThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Attivo Networks ThreatDefend Deception and Response Platform
Neither was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Mistral SmallThinkst Canary alternatives: CyberTrap, Zscaler Deception
Qwen 3.7 FlashCymulate alternatives: Attivo Networks, Crypt48
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
Acalvio ShadowPlex0%#15 of 15Tracebit0%#6 of 15Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Acalvio ShadowPlex2%#5 of 16Tracebit2%#6 of 16Enterprise
Acalvio ShadowPlex leads by sixty-one points.
Acalvio ShadowPlex61%#1 of 13Tracebit0%#– of 13What the models said about Acalvio ShadowPlex
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“This platform had a 61% negative rate in a recommendation index for small businesses... avoid those that: ... Have a history of negative user reviews (like Acalvio ShadowPlex or T-Pot)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid starting with broad enterprise platforms such as Acalvio, CounterCraft, or Zscaler Deception” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“The deception technology platforms to avoid or be cautious about are: 1. Acalvio ShadowPlex” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · hard negative
“Excellent for large enterprises; focuses on disrupting automated/AI-driven attacks... Strong in preemptive deception and low-maintenance deployment.” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Acalvio ShadowPlex, named a leader and outperformer in the GigaOm Radar for Deception Technology for the fourth consecutive year in 2026” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative prompt · first choice
“Choose Acalvio ShadowPlex if: You need enterprise-scale AI-powered deception with broad environment coverage and open integrations.” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Tracebit
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Tracebit: users reported a cluttered interface, difficult navigation, false positives, and a steep learning curve.” GPT-5.4 mini · negative prompt · soft negative
“Cynet or Tracebit typically offer the best balance of capability, cost, and manageability.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
“appears prominently in G2's 2026 deception-technology category, and is often considered for modern cloud-first environments” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · alternative
“Automates the deployment of security canaries across cloud accounts, endpoints, SaaS applications” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Thinkst Canary vs Acalvio ShadowPlexThinkst Canary vs TracebitCanarytokens vs Acalvio ShadowPlexCanarytokens vs TracebitOpenCanary vs Acalvio ShadowPlexOpenCanary vs TracebitHoneyWire vs Acalvio ShadowPlexHoneyWire vs TracebitAcalvio ShadowPlex vs CounterCraftAcalvio ShadowPlex vs Fidelis DeceptionTracebit vs CounterCraftTracebit vs Fidelis DeceptionAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full deception 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.