Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › IT › Security operations › PTaaS › Cobalt vs Bishop Fox
Penetration testing as a service · November 2026 Edition

Cobalt vs Bishop Fox

Nine of fourteen models named Cobalt first on the direct prompt; one named Bishop Fox. Cobalt was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Bishop Fox by eleven and Cobalt carries 47 labels and Bishop Fox 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Cobalt

endorsed leader

Named in one category this edition.

Bishop Fox

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share46%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%8%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#6A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels4713A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Cobalt reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cobalt vs Astra Security · Cobalt vs BreachLock · Cobalt vs Stingrai

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.
CobaltFirst choices, of fourteen modelsBishop Fox
Direct91
Paraphrase1201 against Bishop Fox
Comparative30
Budget-constrained20
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.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Cobalt and Bishop Fox were named in the same answer forty-two times, of the 139 answers naming Cobalt and the 50 naming Bishop Fox. In those answers Bishop Fox took the first choice five times and Cobalt eight.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Cobalt and Bishop Fox stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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
Cobalt Bishop Fox first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Cobalt on the left and Bishop Fox on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Cobalt and Bishop Fox stood in it.

Both were the first choice

1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.
Qwen 3.7 FlashBishop Fox, Cobalt alternatives: HackerOne PTaaS, Lattice Security, NCC Group, Secureworks, TrustedSec

Cobalt first, Bishop Fox an alternative

8 of 14 modelsBishop Fox was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Gemini 3.5 FlashCobalt alternatives: BreachLock, NetSPI, Synack
Perplexity SonarCobalt alternatives: Coalfire, NetSPI, Raxis, Stingrai
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
GPT-6 LunaCobalt alternatives: Bishop Fox, NetSPI
Muse Glimmer 30BCobalt alternatives: BreachLock, Bugcrowd PTaaS, HackerOne PTaaS, NetSPI, Rapid7, Stingrai, Synack

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
GPT-5.4 miniNetSPI alternatives: Appsecco, Cobalt, HackerOne PTaaS, Packetlabs
Grok 4.20BreachLock alternatives: Cobalt, Rapid7
GLM 4.7 FlashXAstra Security alternatives: Blaze InfoSec, Cobalt, SecurityMetrics
MiniMax M2.5Astra Security alternatives: BreachLock, Cobalt, Intruder, Stingrai

Neither was named

1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice

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
Cobalt leads by thirteen points.
Cobalt13%#3 of 8
Bishop Fox0%#– of 8
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Cobalt leads by forty-four points.
Cobalt46%#1 of 12
Bishop Fox2%#6 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Cobalt12%#3 of 12
Bishop Fox12%#4 of 12
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Cobalt

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Known for pioneer PTaaS delivery. Cobalt connects customers with a vetted network of certified testers (the Cobalt Core) via a modern platform.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Cobalt and BreachLock tend to offer the strongest combination of quality, speed, and value.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“Cobalt.io and Astra Security are top recommendations due to their scalability, compliance support, and ease of use” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What 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
Also compared
Cobalt vs Astra SecurityCobalt vs BreachLockCobalt vs StingraiCobalt vs NetSPICobalt vs IntruderCobalt vs RaxisAstra Security vs Bishop FoxBreachLock vs Bishop FoxStingrai vs Bishop FoxNetSPI vs Bishop FoxBishop Fox vs IntruderBishop Fox 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.