Zero of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management first on the direct prompt; zero named OpenVAS. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and OpenVAS by thirteen and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management carries 31 labels and OpenVAS 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in three categories 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 vulnerability management platforms page.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and OpenVAS were named in the same answer twenty-eight times, of the 104 answers naming Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and the 86 naming OpenVAS. In those answers OpenVAS took the first choice three times and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management six.
| 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 |
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. Six of seven in this category shown.
“outside a Microsoft-heavy environment: ... customization, reporting, and resource requirements can become problematic in mixed estates” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“as your sole tool in a diverse estate... check coverage for your exact OS versions, software and asset types, and licensing” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“Improving but has had documented inaccuracies... Good for Microsoft-centric setups but less mature for non-Windows assets.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“The best vulnerability management platform for a company with a limited budget is Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
“This is often the top recommendation for small businesses because it is included for free with Microsoft 365 E5 licenses” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
“The Best "Free" or Lowest-Cost Option ... this tool is often included for free” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
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
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.