Vulnerability management platforms · November 2026 Edition
Intruder vs OpenVAS
One of fourteen models named Intruder first on the direct prompt; zero named OpenVAS. Intruder was named by twelve of the fourteen models and OpenVAS by thirteen and Intruder carries 23 labels and OpenVAS 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share6%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%38%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2321A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Intruder reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rapid7 InsightVM was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Rapid7 InsightVM vs Intruder · Rapid7 InsightVM vs OpenVAS · Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Intruder
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 vulnerability management platforms page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
IntruderFirst choices, of fourteen modelsOpenVAS
Direct101 against OpenVAS
Paraphrase002 against OpenVAS
Comparative00
Budget-constrained23
Scale-constrained00
Negative005 against OpenVAS
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 Intruder and OpenVAS 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 | |
Intruder OpenVAS first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Intruder on the left and OpenVAS on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Intruder and OpenVAS stood in it.
Intruder first, OpenVAS not the choice
1 of 14 modelsOpenVAS was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Mistral SmallTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Qualys VMDR
Qwen 3.7 FlashRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Intruder, Tenable Nessus, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Vicarius vRx
MiniMax M2.5Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Intruder, Tenable Nessus
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
GPT-5.4 miniTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: CrowdStrike, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Wiz
Gemini 3.5 FlashRapid7 InsightVM, Wiz alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Orca Security, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Perplexity SonarRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Vicarius vRx, Wiz
Grok 4.20Tenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, ESET Vulnerability & Patch Mgmt, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Syxsense
DeepSeek V4 FlashManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Kimi K2Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR
GLM 4.7 FlashXRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management, WithSecure Elements
GPT-6 LunaTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM
Muse Glimmer 30BRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
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
Intruder leads by thirty-eight points.
Intruder45%#1 of 12OpenVAS8%#3 of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Intruder6%#6 of 10OpenVAS6%#7 of 10Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Intruder0%#– of 9OpenVAS0%#– of 9What the models said about Intruder
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“Intruder for SaaS simplicity and Greenbone Community Edition for zero licence cost are the most frequently recommended options” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about OpenVAS
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Standalone Nessus (without a console), OpenVAS (without Kubelet/KQL integration) | Lacks the "Management" layer” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid if you need production-grade reliability — use it only for learning or very small lab environments.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“avoid pure scanners (e.g., OpenVAS) as they lack full VM features” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · hard negative
“Intruder for SaaS simplicity and Greenbone Community Edition for zero licence cost are the most frequently recommended options” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“OpenVAS (Greenbone Community Edition) is the most capable free vulnerability management tool” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Best Free/Open-Source Option ... Completely free and open-source” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Rapid7 InsightVM vs IntruderRapid7 InsightVM vs OpenVASTenable Vulnerability Management vs IntruderTenable Vulnerability Management vs OpenVASQualys VMDR vs IntruderQualys VMDR vs OpenVASManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs IntruderManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs OpenVASMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs IntruderMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs OpenVASIntruder vs WizOpenVAS vs WizAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full vuln management 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.