Deception technology · November 2026 Edition
Tracebit vs CounterCraft
One of fourteen models named Tracebit first on the direct prompt; one named CounterCraft. Tracebit was named by nine of the fourteen models and CounterCraft by eleven and Tracebit carries 13 labels and CounterCraft 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
CounterCraft
criticized challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate8%25%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.
Labels1320A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Tracebit 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 Tracebit · Thinkst Canary vs CounterCraft · Canarytokens vs Tracebit
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.
TracebitFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCounterCraftDirect111 against CounterCraft
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained003 against CounterCraft
Scale-constrained00
Negative011 against Tracebit · 1 against CounterCraft
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, Tracebit and CounterCraft were named in the same answer eleven times, of the 35 answers naming Tracebit and the 63 naming CounterCraft. In those answers CounterCraft took the first choice zero times and Tracebit one.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Tracebit and CounterCraft stood in it.
| Model | DirectCO | ParaphraseCO | ComparativeCO | Budget-constrainedCO | Scale-constrainedCO | NegativeCO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | CO | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | CO | | CO | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | CO | CO | CO | |||
| Grok 4.20 | CO | CO | CO | |||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | CO | |||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | CO | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | | CO | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | CO | |||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | CO | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
TracebitCO CounterCraft first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Tracebit on the left and CounterCraft on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Tracebit and CounterCraft stood in it.
Tracebit first, CounterCraft not the choice
1 of 14 modelsCounterCraft was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2Cynet, Tracebit alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Deceptive Bytes
CounterCraft first, Tracebit not the choice
1 of 14 modelsTracebit was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.MiniMax M2.5CounterCraft, Fidelis Deception alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Attivo Networks
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.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
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Thinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Canarytokens, Illusive Networks
Perplexity SonarThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Fidelis Deception, Rapid7 InsightIDR Deception
Grok 4.20Thinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, FortiDeceptor, Illusive Networks, TrapX
Mistral SmallThinkst Canary alternatives: CyberTrap, Zscaler Deception
DeepSeek V4 FlashAcalvio ShadowPlex alternatives: SentinelOne Singularity, Thinkst Canary
Llama 4 MaverickThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex, Cymulate Deception, Fidelis Deception, Illusive Networks, TrapX DeceptionGrid
Qwen 3.7 FlashCymulate alternatives: Attivo Networks, Crypt48
GLM 4.7 FlashXThinkst Canary alternatives: Acalvio ShadowPlex
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
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.
Tracebit0%#6 of 15CounterCraft0%#13 of 15
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Tracebit2%#6 of 16CounterCraft2%#7 of 16
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
CounterCraft leads by two points.
CounterCraft2%#4 of 13
Tracebit0%#– of 13What 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
What the models said about CounterCraft
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 starting with broad enterprise platforms such as Acalvio, CounterCraft, or Zscaler Deception” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid overly complex enterprise suites like *Acalvio ShadowPlex* or *CounterCraft*” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · hard negative
“often start at thousands of dollars per year ... making them unsuitable for tight budgets” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“High-interaction decoys, strong across network/endpoint/identity/cloud/OT; praised for threat intel.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · first choice
“I would recommend Fidelis Security or CounterCraft as the top choices” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Particularly strong for organizations that want deception as part of a broader threat intelligence program” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Thinkst Canary vs TracebitThinkst Canary vs CounterCraftCanarytokens vs TracebitCanarytokens vs CounterCraftOpenCanary vs TracebitOpenCanary vs CounterCraftHoneyWire vs TracebitHoneyWire vs CounterCraftAcalvio ShadowPlex vs TracebitAcalvio ShadowPlex vs CounterCraftTracebit vs Fidelis DeceptionCounterCraft 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.