Penetration testing as a service · November 2026 Edition
Bishop Fox vs Intruder
One of fourteen models named Bishop Fox first on the direct prompt; zero named Intruder. Bishop Fox was named by eleven of the fourteen models and Intruder by eleven and both carry 13 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in six categories this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate8%15%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels1313Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Bishop Fox reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cobalt was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cobalt vs Bishop Fox · Cobalt vs Intruder · Astra Security vs Bishop Fox
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 penetration testing as a service page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Bishop FoxFirst choices, of fourteen modelsIntruder
Direct10
Paraphrase001 against Bishop Fox · 1 against Intruder
Comparative001 against Intruder
Budget-constrained01
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
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 Bishop Fox and Intruder 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 | |
Bishop Fox Intruder first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Bishop Fox on the left and Intruder on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Bishop Fox and Intruder stood in it.
Bishop Fox first, Intruder not the choice
1 of 14 modelsIntruder was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Qwen 3.7 FlashBishop Fox, Cobalt alternatives: HackerOne PTaaS, Lattice Security, NCC Group, Secureworks, TrustedSec
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.MiniMax M2.5Astra Security alternatives: BreachLock, Cobalt, Intruder, Stingrai
GPT-6 LunaCobalt alternatives: Bishop Fox, NetSPI
Neither was named
11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
GPT-5.4 miniNetSPI alternatives: Appsecco, Cobalt, HackerOne PTaaS, Packetlabs
Gemini 3.5 FlashCobalt alternatives: BreachLock, NetSPI, Synack
Perplexity SonarCobalt alternatives: Coalfire, NetSPI, Raxis, Stingrai
Grok 4.20BreachLock alternatives: Cobalt, Rapid7
Mistral SmallCobalt alternatives: BreachLock, NetSPI, Stingrai
DeepSeek V4 FlashBreachLock, Cobalt alternatives: Baker Tilly, Cherry Bekaert, RSM, Rapid7, Sprocket Security, Stingrai
Llama 4 MaverickCobalt
Kimi K2BreachLock, Cobalt alternatives: Stingrai
GLM 4.7 FlashXAstra Security alternatives: Blaze InfoSec, Cobalt, SecurityMetrics
Muse Glimmer 30BCobalt alternatives: BreachLock, Bugcrowd PTaaS, HackerOne PTaaS, NetSPI, Rapid7, Stingrai, Synack
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.
Bishop Fox0%#– of 8Intruder0%#7 of 8Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Bishop Fox2%#6 of 12Intruder2%#7 of 12Enterprise
Bishop Fox leads by twelve points.
Bishop Fox12%#4 of 12Intruder0%#– of 12What the models said about Bishop Fox
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Better for complex, high-risk environments, but likely more than a typical mid-sized company needs initially” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“widely regarded as one of the most technically capable boutique firms” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“High-risk, custom engagements | Specialist offensive-security consultancy focused on deep manual testing” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · alternative
“Recognized for technical depth, manual testing, and a strong reputation in the security community.” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · alternative
What the models said about Intruder
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.
“Do you only want an automated scan (like Intruder or Acunetix)? *Warning: For true B2B credibility, you almost always need human-exploitable proof*” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Automated (e.g., Intruder, Acunetix): Faster and cheaper but prone to false positives and misses business logic flaws.” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · soft negative
Also compared
Cobalt vs Bishop FoxCobalt vs IntruderAstra Security vs Bishop FoxAstra Security vs IntruderBreachLock vs Bishop FoxBreachLock vs IntruderStingrai vs Bishop FoxStingrai vs IntruderNetSPI vs Bishop FoxNetSPI vs IntruderBishop Fox vs RaxisIntruder vs RaxisAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full ptaas 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.