Zero of fourteen models named Forescout Vistaro Platform first on the direct prompt; zero named Palo Alto Networks OT Security. Forescout Vistaro Platform was named by nine of the fourteen models and Palo Alto Networks OT Security by twelve and Forescout Vistaro Platform carries 17 labels and Palo Alto Networks OT Security 23, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
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 OT and IoT security page.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Forescout Vistaro Platform and Palo Alto Networks OT Security were named in the same answer thirty-four times, of the 58 answers naming Forescout Vistaro Platform and the 68 naming Palo Alto Networks OT Security. In those answers Palo Alto Networks OT Security took the first choice one time and Forescout Vistaro Platform one.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | PA | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | ||||||
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.20 | PA | PA | ||||
| Mistral Small | PA | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | ||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | ||||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | PA | PA | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | PA | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B |
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.
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Can be resource-intensive, pricing model may be complex, initial configuration can be challenging.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Start by evaluating Forescout or Claroty” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Forescout offers deep packet inspection for IoT/OT protocol analysis combined with broad IoT/IT visibility in a single-vendor approach” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · alternative
“Forescout “$7,500/year base appliance/virtual deployment tier (~$15-$25/endpoint/year) 30-day virtual appliance evaluation license”” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · alternative
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“consistently highlight expensive pricing (often the top con...), complex setup/configuration, and a steeper learning curve for OT teams” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Complex setup, steep learning curve, high cost, requires specialized expertise. May be overkill for small operations.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Also noted as a "criticized challenger" with limited positive feedback in recent rankings” Mistral Small · negative prompt · soft negative
“OT appliances start at $2,200-$4,000 with bundles scaling to $7,000-$10,000, making this a more affordable entry point than enterprise solutions.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“converged solutions from vendors like Microsoft, Palo Alto, or Claroty are increasingly preferred” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
“The Premium Choice: Palo Alto Networks ... The Trade-off: It is generally more expensive and has a steeper learning curve than Fortinet.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · alternative
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.