Index › IT › Security operations › Vuln management › Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs Wiz
Vulnerability management platforms · November 2026 Edition
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs Wiz
Zero of fourteen models named Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management first on the direct prompt; one named Wiz. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Wiz by ten and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management carries 31 labels and Wiz 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in seventeen categories this edition.
First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate10%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#8A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels3118A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management 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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management · Rapid7 InsightVM vs Wiz · Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management
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.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementFirst choices, of fourteen modelsWiz
Direct01
Paraphrase01
Comparative00
Budget-constrained30
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management
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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Wiz 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 | | |
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management Wiz first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management on the left and Wiz on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Wiz stood in it.
Wiz first, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management an alternative
1 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Defender Vulnerability Management was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashRapid7 InsightVM, Wiz alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Spotlight, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Orca Security, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: CrowdStrike, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Wiz
Perplexity SonarRapid7 InsightVM alternatives: ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Vicarius vRx, Wiz
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
Neither was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
Grok 4.20Tenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management, ESET Vulnerability & Patch Mgmt, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Syxsense
Mistral SmallTenable Vulnerability Management alternatives: Intruder, ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Qualys VMDR
DeepSeek V4 FlashManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus, Rapid7 InsightVM alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Tenable Vulnerability Management
Llama 4 MaverickIntruder alternatives: Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Vulnerability Management
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
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
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management leads by nine points.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management9%#2 of 12Wiz0%#– of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management leads by two points.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management6%#5 of 10Wiz4%#8 of 10Enterprise
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management leads by nine points.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management9%#4 of 9Wiz0%#6 of 9What the models said about Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management
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
What the models said about Wiz
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
Rapid7 InsightVM vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementRapid7 InsightVM vs WizTenable Vulnerability Management vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementTenable Vulnerability Management vs WizQualys VMDR vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementQualys VMDR vs WizManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability ManagementManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus vs WizMicrosoft 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.